The media may have thought that Mitt Romney was a finalist for the job of John McCain's running mate. But Romney himself recently told NEWSWEEK that he wasn't so easily fooled. "I had a sense it wasn't going to be me," he said in an interview with Stumper and assorted colleagues last week in St. Paul.

For months, speculation to the contrary was intense. On June 30, the Politico's Mike Allen reported that "Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain," and 50 days later, on August 20, both Time's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann wondered aloud--or, rather, online--whether McCain's ongoing flirtation with pro-choice pols like Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge was really "a bit of elaborate gamesmanship designed to make Evangelicals more grateful than they otherwise might be for the selection" of Romney, "a running mate who, despite being pro-life, the religious right has some qualms about."

But as it turns out, Romney knew he wouldn't get the nod by early August--well before that second round of buzz began. How exactly? Only days after interviewing with McCain veep vetter A.B Culvahouse in mid-July, Romney was informed by the Arizona senator's campaign staff that he'd be shipping off Denver on Aug. 26 to make the case against Barack Obama during the Democratic convention. Although contemporaneous press accounts said Romney was still "under serious consideration as... McCain's running mate," Mitt says the assignment pretty much sealed his fate. "I was told by my own staff beforehand they McCain wouldn't send his VP to the Denver Convention," he said. "So when I found out I was going, I said, 'Okay, that makes sense.'" Likewise, McCain also booked Romney on Meet the Press the Sunday prior to St. Paul--another new-veep no-no. Asked how it felt to hear the entire political press corps saying "it's Romney" when he was certain the opposite was true, the former Massachusetts governor admitted he was somewhat amused. "I was surprised to read all the conversations right up until the end," he said. "I was asking my staff how I could go online and bet against myself. I thought it was [Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty, or maybe [former Pennsylvania Gov.] Tom Ridge."

Shows how much we know.

Ever the good soldier, Romney was bullish on the woman who beat him out, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying he was "struck by how calm, confident, poised and sharp she is." When pressed to assess how should would help McCain in Michigan--the place where many politicos believed Romney could boost the GOP to victory thanks to his family roots and father's former governorship--Mitt deflected the somewhat painful question (oh, what could have been!) with a bit of self-deprecation. First, he suggested the blue-collar workers in the economically depressed Great Lakes State wouldn't vote for a pair of pols with more than a dozen homes between them, confessing that "I have one too many houses at least." Then Romney touted Palin's superior appeal to Michigan's many sportsmen. "I shot rabbits, she hunted moose" he said. "So there's no comparison there."

There's still time before 2012, Mitt. There's still time. 

ST. PAUL, Minn--Former Massachusetts governor and alleged human lifeform Mitt Romney just finished his remarks here at the 2008 Republican Convention and, boy, was he excited.

I'm told that CNN, MSNBC and FOX News didn't broadcast the governor's speech in its entirety. That's too bad, because excitement like Romney's deserve to be enjoyed by the broadest possible audience--not just the people who are crazy enough to attend a political convention or watch one on C-SPAN. That's why I've decided to share the essence of Romney's address with you, the people who are crazy enough to read about a political convention on a NEWSWEEK political blog.

As I said earlier, Romney was excited. I know this not because Mitt spent his first few minutes on stage shouting that all the stuff controlled by Republicans since the year 2000--the Supreme Court, the government, the Congress, the spending--is liberal. "We need change all right," he said. "Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington!" Nor do I know that Romney was excited simply because he stuffed his speech with language vigorous enough to earn him an A-minus in ninth-grade creative writing. "It's time to look for the sun in the west, 'cause it's about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska!" "China is acting like Adam Smith on steroids!" "Mortgage money was handed out like candy!" "[We must] tak[e] a weed-whacker to excessive regulation and mandates!" "[We must] stand up to the Tyrannosaurus appetite of government unions!" I could go on.

No, I know that Romney was excited mostly because there were lots and lots of exclamation points in his prepared remarks. In fact, of Mitt's 61 sentences, a full 17 ended in exclamation points. That's 28 percent! By comparison, zero of Mike Huckabee's 90 sentences ended in exclamation points. Here in the hall, I couldn't help but think that this was a good thing. As Romney veered from liberals to Adam Smith to weed-whackers to Tyrannosauruses and then back to liberals again, his face flush, his voice straining, I watched each of his 17 exclamation points scroll by on the teleprompter and thought: thank goodness. I mean, how else would Romney's neural net processor know that the time had come to simulate human excitement?
 

Is Tom Ridge a ruse?

As regular Stumper readers will recognize, I've lately been a bit, shall we say, boosterish on the whole idea of John McCain picking the pro-choice former Pennsylvania governor as his running mate. Last Thursday, I reacted to McCain's statement that Ridge's abortion stance wouldn't "necessarily rule [him] out" with a long post on why "Ridge looks increasingly possible." The following day, I responded to conservative outrage by saying "I suspect that McCain really wants Ridge on his team, and may even believe that the centrist strength of a McCain-Ridge ticket would more than offset any losses on the right." By Monday, I was claiming that Ridge's assurance that he would "echo" McCain's beliefs as veep and the simultaneous reports that "the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country... and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick" signaled that Team McCain "may be more willing to take the plunge than the naysayers have anticipated." And yesterday I flat out predicted that McCain would pick Ridge as his partner.

Could my breathless, junkie-ish, uninformed speculation have been wrong?. According to FOX News's Carl Cameron and Time's Mark Halperin, a handful of GOP sources--including a "strategist" and  "Republican National Committee officials"--are now telling reporters that "the presumptive GOP nominee is no longer considering former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge." Which is, of course, what cooler heads were saying all along--i.e., that McCain would never risk depressing Republican base turnout in an effort to regain some of his maverick cred, especially at the risk of turning the Republican convention into an ugly cage match. As conventional wisdom, that always made perfect sense. But no one seemed to be able to explain why McCain and Co. were running the idea by Republican activists and inflaming evangelical passions if they never intended to go with Ridge--at least not to my satisfaction.

That's not to say the chattering classes didn't try. Some pundits claimed that the pro-choice episode was an elaborately stage-managed charade meant to show swing voters that McCain remains an independent-minded iconoclast. Unfortunately, this theory ignored the fact that such a charade--which involves raising the possibility of a pro-choice veep just to inspire conservative outage before ultimately settling on a pro-lifer--would create the impression that McCain had (yet again?) bowed to the far right instead of following his own "maverick" instincts. As theater, it would, in other words, make him look weak, not strong--further emphasizing for moderates how far he's fallen since 2000. And the second major hypothesis--that McCain was using the episode to show the religious right how much its input matters to him--is simply laughable. There are far better ways to boost the evangelical ego than giving them the impression that you're soft on abortion.

So why am I suddenly willing to entertain the idea that my Ridgemania was a bit misguided? Because someone--namely, John Heilemann of New York magazine--has finally conjured up a theory that makes some sense. According to Heilemann, McCain probably felt pressured to make a bold pick earlier this summer, when he was trailing Obama by six to eight points in the polls; now that the race is essentially tied--thanks to gains among the Republican base and with Evangelicals in particular--a bold pick looks foolishly risky. What this means, writes Heilemann, is that "McCain and his people [may be] engaged in a bit of elaborate gamesmanship designed to make Evangelicals more grateful than they otherwise might be for the selection" of "a running mate who, despite being pro-life, the religious right has some qualms about." His name? Mitt Romney. Of course, this is still pure speculation. (Do we even need to include that disclaimer anymore?) But it does have the added benefit of explaining why the McCain machine has suddenly started spreading rumors about Joe Lieberman--a "longshot" who would, in our opinion, "bring little to the ticket." If you think social conservatives will be grateful not to see a pro-choice Republican as veep, the thinking goes, just imagine how they'll react to the absence of a pro-choice Democrat.

With that in mind, it's worth remembering that Romney would make a pretty good running mate--assuming that McCain and Co. can sell the Mormon pol as a concession to evangelicals rather than an affront. As we've already written, Mitt is a proven vote-getter who would "help dispel doubts about the managerial and economic acumen of his partner, a career legislator"; b) "could very well boost his boss's bid in the increasingly purple swing state of Michigan, where his father was governor and the Romney brand is strong"; c) "could also help close the massive fundraising gap between McCain and Barack Obama" thanks to his "proven skill at soliciting donations and a personal fortune of $250 million"; and d) "would probably do the most of all the potential picks to excite dispirited, ground-level Republicans." On June 30--pre-Ridgemania--I even concluded "that Romney is the man to watch." If Heilemann's theory is right--and I certainly think it's possible--he may be again.

At the very least, Team McCain has deftly used the pro-choice "trial balloons" to accomplish an important goal: "inserting itself into the media narrative at times when the assumption that Obama was going to own a week." As MSNBC's First Readers rightly note, "with Obama’s VP selection coming up... the focus is supposed to be ALL on Obama. Yet instead, it's become a true split-screen story now that McCain's camp is purportedly considering Lieberman or Ridge for the No. 2 slot." Exhibit A: yours truly.

Those sneaky bastards. 

Name: Mitt Romney
Age: 61
Resume: Former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 Republican presidential candidate

Source of speculation: How Romney and McCain spent their Memorial Day weekend: together. On Friday, the presumptive Republican nominee split from the campaign trail for a three-day break at his ranch in Sedona, Arizona. But he didn't put all presidential preparations on hold. Joining McCain for what aides insistently--and euphemistically--described as a "social weekend" were three of his top veep contenders: Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida and, of course, Romney. What a coincidence--or not. On background, associates admitted to the New York Times last Wednesday that "while these would not be formal interviews, the weekend would provide Mr. McCain a chance to know some of his potential running mates in a social context." Think "Survivor: Veepstakes Edition." Horseshoes, anyone?

Backstory: Since quitting the Republican race on Feb. 7, Romney has made no secret of his desire to serve as McCain's second fiddle. “I think any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included," he told FOX's Sean Hannity on March 11. "If the nominee of our party asked you to serve with him, anybody would be honored to receive that call … and to accept it, of course.” Meanwhile, two of D.C.'s most wired conservative journalists--Bob Novak and Fred Barnes--have reported that all the president's men are pushing Romney for number two. "President Bush favors him as McCain's veep," wrote Barnes in March. "Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, preferred Romney over McCain in the primaries, but never endorsed him publicly. Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, has hinted that he considers Romney to be McCain's best running mate." And, lest we forget, Romney has even paid McCain the most flattering of canine compliments: "when it comes to national security, John McCain is the big dog--and [Clinton and Obama] are the chihuahuas" Woof.

Odds: Moderate. As a running mate for McCain, Romney is almost all upside. For starters, he's a decade younger than McCain, 71, and looks about 50--a key consideration for a candidate who often claims he's "older than dirt." As veep, Romney's executive experience and private-sector expertise--before serving as Massachusetts governor, he was CEO of Bain and Company, co-founder of Bain Capital and savior of the troubled 2002 Salt Lake Olympics--would help dispel doubts about the managerial and economic acumen of his partner, a career legislator who often shows little interest in subjects other than foreign policy or government reform. ("The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should," McCain has infamously said.) Regarding the electoral map, Mitt, unlike other VP hopefuls, won't help McCain win his home state--the deep-blue Massachusetts--but he could very well boost his boss's bid in the increasingly purple swing state of Michigan, where his father was governor and the Romney brand is strong. With proven skill at soliciting donations and a personal fortune of $250 million--which, we should note, he's not afraid to spend campaigning for office--Romney could also help close the massive fundraising gap between McCain and Barack Obama. And by bringing to the ticket a built-in base that was large enough to keep him neck-and-neck with his former rival from Arizona through Super Tuesday--and consists, with its blend of hard-core fiscal conservatives and family-values voters, of Republicans who've been somewhat wary of embracing the unorthodox GOP nominee--Romney would probably do the most of all the potential picks to excite dispirited, ground-level Republicans. That alone is a substantial bright spot in these dark days of GOP decline and Democratic enthusiasm.

Still, Romney is only "almost" all upside--and his biggest liability is a potential game-ender. It's not so much that Romney ran an extremely confused (and confusing) primary campaign, tacking wildly from "Reaganite rightwinger" to "moderate technocrat" over the course of 2007 and early 2008; although Democrats would surely paint him as a hypocrite, citing his flip-flops on abortion and gay marriage, Mitt's chameleonic talents might actually come in handy during a general election in which wooing Independents is at least as important as appeasing the base. And it's not that Romney spent months attacking McCain in precisely the same way that Obama is now attacking him ("John McCain can't CHANGE Washington," he once said. "John McCain IS Washington"); sure, the Dems would cut a few biting ads, but voters' memories are reliably short when it comes to such shenanigans (after all, John Edwards' 2004 primary season swipes at John Kerry didn't haunt the joint ticket that fall).

In the end, it seems Mitt's major problem isn't political--it's personal. In the wake of Romney's February withdrawal, it was widely reported that Team McCain considered their recently vanquished rival an unprincipled opportunist, and in interviews and speeches at the time, the candidate was barely able to keep his contempt in check. Since then, Romney and McCain have raised money together, and Romney, for one, has said "there are really no hard feelings, I don't think." But an lingering animosity doesn't bode well for Mitt. For a pol, McCain places an unusually high premium on friendships and loyalty--and, according to the Times, "associates [have already] said personal chemistry would be a crucial consideration in his choice" for veep.

That said, McCain had little trouble overcoming his resentment toward President Bush--who sunk McCain in South Carolina in 2000 with a whispering campaign about a "black" love child--and embracing him when it became a political necessity. Who's to say he won't repeat the process with Romney?

Talk about a high-stakes game of horseshoes.

UPDATE AFTER THE JUMP: Does Romney Hurt McCain with Evangelicals?
 

In case you've been wondering why former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has spent the two-and-a-half months since dropping out of the race a) delivering color commentary for MSNBC on primary nights, b) raising money for fellow GOPers through a new political action committee c) writing a book due out in (hint, hint) November and d) campaigning with John McCain every chance he gets... well, mystery solved. Yesterday on Meet the Press, the Huckster explained it all:

"There's no one I would rather be on a ticket with than John McCain. All during the campaign when I was his rival, not a running mate, there was no one who was more complimentary of him publicly and privately. ... I still wanted to win, but if I couldn't, John McCain was always the guy I would have supported and have now supported."

After which Huckabee made his hand into a phone, wiggled it next to his face and mouthed the words "call me." Why the sudden burst of "pick me" desperation from Huck? After all, in an interview Thursday with my NEWSWEEK colleague Matthew Philips, the silver-tongued Arkansan was far more reserved regarding the veepstakes. "That's just pure speculation that I don't want to be a part of," he said. "No one has contacted me or indicated any of that to me. I'm just focused on getting [McCain] elected." Of course, Huck chatted with Philips before his "joking" at the National Rifle Association convention in Louisville, Ky. Friday that "somebody aimed a gun at [Barack Obama] and he dove for the floor"--and thus before he started to worry that his fondness for bleak assassination humor could cost him a slot on the shortlist. 

But in all fairness, while Democrats like John Edwards ("No. Won't happen") and Jim Webb ("I would highly discourage [it]") may regularly (and perhaps less-than-truthfully) insist that they have no interest in running with Obama, Huckabee isn't the only Republican who's been remarkably open about his vice-presidential ambitions. “I think any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included," said former Massachusetts Governor--and fellow McCain rival--Mitt Romney on March 11.  "If the nominee of our party asked you to serve with him, anybody would be honored to receive that call … and to accept it, of course."

It seems everybody's a straight talker these days.
 

With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fighting each other to a draw over the last few weeks in the riveting battle for blue-collar ordinariness--Clinton: Crown Royal, Mauser rifles, red pick up trucks, NASCAR; Obama: Budweiser, apple pie, P-I-G, hay bales--Stumper hereby proposes a new way for the good people of Indiana and North Carolina to decide which candidate they prefer:

Who delivers a funnier Top Ten list?

Last night, the former First Lady appeared on the David Letterman Show via satellite to rattle off her "Top Ten Reasons Hillary Clinton Loves America." Watch it and weep:

Incidentally, Clinton's appearance came a little more than three months after her rival gave Letterman his "Top Ten Barack Obama Campaign Promises." Get it while it's hot:

Who's funnier? We'll let the Tar Heels and Hoosiers decide. But it's at least as relevant as who can down a boilermaker with the most gusto.

By the way, our pick for funniest Top Ten list: Mitt Romney. Here he is last week at D.C.'s Radio Correspondents Dinner with the "Top Ten Reasons I Decided to Get Out of the Race":

Mitt Romney? Funny? We never thought we'd say those words in the same sentence. But with Obama and Clinton as the competition, "I took a bad fall... and broke my hair" might actually take the cake. 

Edwards: Not the best way to convey authenticity.

Expertinent is a regular Stumper column featuring interviews with experts on the news of the day.

Last month, I stumbled upon an interesting article in--of all places--Time magazine. (Grrrr.) Written by John Cloud, "Synthetic Authenticity" riffed on the latest book by renowned business consultants Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore, who run an Aurora, Ohio, consulting firm called Strategic Horizons. (According to Cloud, they enjoy "an almost cultlike following in the business world because of their ability to accurately predict consumer sentiments." Go figure.) In "Authenticity," as Cloud explains, Pine and Gilmore "argue that the virtualization of life (friends aren't friends unless you "confirm" them on Facebook; reporters are now all bloggers, and vice versa) has led to a deep consumer yearning for the authentic."

This sounded about right to me. It's no mystery that people purchase a product nowadays not only because it's low in cost or high in quality, but because it somehow reflects who they are. (iPhone, anyone?) And it's clear that such consumers are attracted to brands that achieve an aura, however contrived, of authenticity--Starbucks, Apple, Volkswagen. That said, my first thought upon reading Cloud's article wasn't about business. It was (predictably) about politics.

Politicians, of course, are fake. Everyone knows that. But more and more it seems that what they're required to fake is being real. John Edwards represents "Real Change." Mike Huckabee is an "authentic conservative." And John McCain rides his "Straight Talk Express." (George Allen, on the other hand, was too real.) Wondering how our increasing desire for authenticity has influenced the 2008 presidential race--which seems likely to end with a win for one of two candidates, McCain or Barack Obama, who have labored mightily to sell themselves as authentic--I gave Pine and Gilmore a call. Excerpts from our chat:

How have you seen the "authenticity" concept play out this cycle, and how has it been different than previous cycles?
Gilmore: This is the first cycle where authenticity is really in the fore, both in how people view the candidates and how pundits describe the race. You can have hardly any article out there today that doesn't talk about the level of perceived authenticity of this or another candidate. I daresay that in the end, whoever wins is going to be the one whom more voters perceive as authentic.

Pine: I've joked in the past that it seems like every single debate, as soon as they go to the talking heads--and David Gergen stands out most in my mind--the very first soundbite is evaluating them based on authenticity. "I think Mike Huckabee came off as the most real." "I think Hillary came off as most authentic." It's always the first soundbite.

But is that really different than previous cycles? And if so, what accounts for the increasing emphasis on authenticity?
Gilmore: Certainly it's the first time that it's been vocalized to the extent it has. The perception of phon-aticians...

Pine: Did you just say phon-aticians?

[Laughter]

Gilmore: There you go. The perception of politicians being phony has always been there. But now it's being vocalized in a way that parallels what's happening with economic offerings. Consumers want to buy what they perceive to be real. Similarly, in any political offering, voters want to buy what they perceive to be real. There's a correlation here.

What are the cultural reasons for this increasing emphasis on authenticity?
Gilmore: There are a bunch of factors contributing to that desire. First of all, there's the emergence of the experience economy--in an increasingly "unreal" world, people are vacationing at Atlantis and going to American Girl Place and having the Geek Squad repair their computer. That causes a desire for authenticity. Then there's the automation of services. That's the second driver. You call a company and hope to reach a "real person." Life is becoming more and more mediated. Third, the rise of Boomers and the rise of postmodernism also contribute--people believe there is something different or unique about our time. And finally it's the failures of our social institutions. It's there--along with not-for-profits, businesses and religious and educational institutions--that we identify the phoniness of politicians and government as contributing our desire for authenticity. People today don't just want cost or quality, they want real. It's only natural for that desire to extend to our politicians.

They're searching, in other words, for people who contrast what they're bombarded with every day.
Gilmore: Right. In a phony, contrived, mediated world, you have to stand out. And you stand out by rendering yourself authentic.

But isn't "authenticity," as you define it, just another contrivance? For businesses, it's not necessarily being authentic that matters, right? It's conveying authenticity. I'm interested in hearing how you evaluate the presidential candidates as brands.
Gilmore: Most of the candidates who came off as inauthentic were eliminated early on. I did an exercise awhile ago where I decided to go find the number one most-viewed video of each candidate on YouTube. My hypothesis was that the most-viewed video might not reach an overwhelming percentage of the population, but it will be indicative of a sentiment that's more pervasive. It will encapsulate what the populace really thinks of each candidate. So John Edwards' most-watched video. Can you guess?

The one where he's fluffing his hair.
Pine: Exactly. To the tune of "She's So Pretty."

Gilmore: Now, it may have had only 500,000 views, but it's iconic of what the general population thinks of him. Boom, gone--fake. In doing the exercise, I came up with this construct: earlier in the primary season, the Democrats seemed to be proclaiming their own authenticity--"Real Change," the "real" this or that. Whereas the Republicans seemed to be pointing fingers at each other and calling each other fake. The Romney folks posted videos like, "The Real Rudy?" And Giuliani responded with "The Real Mitt?" McCain sort of stayed away from that. As we write in our book, if you're authentic you don't have to say you're authentic. Pointing fingers at somebody else and saying they're fake is the same as saying you're real, and that backfires.

The same thing happened to Edwards, who made "Real Change" his slogan at one point. Thou doth protest too much.
Gilmore: Exactly.

Let's talk about another casualty of the primary process: Mitt Romney. He was unquestionably the savviest businessman of the bunch, and yet some would say that the way he was branded, in terms of conveying authenticity, was completely incompetent. Do you agree?
Pine: His basic problem was the perceived flip-flops. He said one thing to get elected governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts, but he was saying very different things to get elected in the more conservative party.

Gilmore: When we're talking to businesses about authenticity, we tell them that they have to understand their heritage. Well, his heritage was one that was very difficult for a large portion of the Republican party to swallow--or to believe was credible.

How should Romney have handled his heritage? Was there any way he could've packaged himself to seem authentic? Or was it a fatal flaw?
Pine: There are ways. Ronald Reagan, for example, signed the first abortion bill in California. And when he was running for president, one of the things he did was talk about how much he regretted it. You could see the emotion in doing that.

Gilmore: But in 1976, Reagan had the passage of a dozen years since he'd done that. If in four or eight years Romney had run, with four or eight years of being decidedly pro-life under his belt, he would've seemed more authentic.

Pine: It gets back to one of the points we make about economic offerings: don't say you're authentic, but render yourself authentic. That rendering--particularly if you're trying to change perceptions of yourself--does take a number of years.

Gilmore: In terms of authenticity, I find so interesting Romney's faith speech versus Obama's. Obama's was grounded in a reaction to an actual event--the media uncovering this venom from his pastor. If Romney would've had to react to some footage that had gotten out of a senior Mormon muckety-muck going off the rails, then his speech would've been grounded in, "Hey, I disavow all of this."

But instead it looked like an unprompted political calculation?
Gilmore: Right. Here's the thing: anybody who self-proclaims authenticity in any sphere--politics, business, wherever--is dubious. His speech was self-induced. Obama laid back. He responded to an actual event. That was grounded in reality.

AFTER THE JUMP: OBAMA, CLINTON, AND "AUTHENTICITY" IN THE GENERAL ELECTION...

Not exactly. Here's NEWSWEEK's Suzanne Smalley with the inside story of Romney's decision to endorse the presumptive Republican nominee.

They often looked ready to trade blows in the debates. Just a few weeks ago, Mitt Romney called John McCain a liar for allegedly distorting Romney's position on the Iraq War. For his part, McCain seemed to revel in leading the other Republican candidates in ganging up on Romney, whom he didn't even try to pretend to like.

But all that is ancient history now. After watching Mike Huckabee continue to rack up delegates and signal he has no intention of exiting the race--as he did after the Virginia primary Tuesday night--Romney decided to formally endorse the Arizona senator Thursday. According to a source close to Romney, who asked not to be identified discussing internal campaign strategy, the former Massachusetts governor was spurred to action by Huckabee's "decision to linger against impossible odds, delaying the launch of a general-election campaign ... We were going to endorse at some point. The only question was when. Doing it now seemed to have added value, given that Huckabee continues to be a presence."

Despite Romney's decision to endorse McCain, the men have hardly become chummy in recent days. A second source close to Romney stressed that the "businessman" in him decided to make the endorsement for "practical" reasons. A third Romney adviser stressed that it "was always sort of inevitable" that Romney would formally endorse McCain. But the adviser said that the McCain campaign was in a hurry to move things along (so much so that Romney delayed a family trip to California to visit his grandchildren so that he could make the announcement). The adviser said that Romney's delegates, while not bound by law to McCain, will "put him over the top" if they support the senator as expected. The McCain campaign "want[ed] to get it done sooner", the adviser said of the endorsement, because they hope to get Huckabee out of the race. The Romney adviser added that he believes the RNC will begin increasing pressure on the former Arkansas governor to step aside very soon.

As is typical of Romney, the choice to endorse was a no-nonsense call arrived at without a lot of ceremony. Romney's campaign manager phoned Rick Davis, who is managing McCain's campaign, and told him of Romney's plans Thursday morning, Romney's spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom tells NEWSWEEK. Romney had intended to announce his endorsement Monday, before Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, but McCain's campaign wanted to move the announcement up since McCain was campaigning in Rhode Island on Thursday and could easily get to Boston for the press conference. Romney and McCain met inside Romney's Boston headquarters for 15 minutes, Fehrnstrom said, before adding that the men had not spoken since last week when Romney dropped out of the race.

Read the rest here.

contributed by Suzanne Smalley

So how did Mitt Romney decide to exit the race? Eric Fehrnstrom, the former Massachusetts governor’s traveling press secretary, said the first clue came at a meeting of about 10 senior staffers at headquarters in Boston yesterday. At that session, Fehrnstrom says, Romney indicated that he “didn’t want to do anything that would hurt the party or hurt the nation." That comment gave Fehrnstrom, a longtime Romney aide, an inkling that something was up. But Romney went on to attend a meeting of all staff at headquarters, at which he was “cheered and encouraged by his campaign workers and volunteers to go forward.” At about 3 PM yesterday, the New York Times reported that Romney’s son Tagg said his father intended to stay in the race, indicating that strategists for the campaign were discussing the possibility of winning over unbound delegates as a way of cobbling together a win. Romney headed home to Belmont late yesterday afternoon, to write up the speech he would give Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Committee’s winter meeting. As he wrote, the address “turned into a farewell speech,” Fehrnstrom said.

As always with Romney, family was key. He consulted with his five sons and wife, Ann, before making the decision. Ann and Tag were both present at yesterday’s senior staff session. Word spread among his top aides, as they swapped copies of the speech. Fehrnstrom himself was taking in a Celtics game when he learned his boss was getting out.

Following the CPAC speech, Romney immediately got on the phone with his national finance co-chairs and later Thursday afternoon will head up to Capitol Hill and meet with congressional supporters (who learned of his decision along with the CPAC audience).

Meanwhile, McCain was preparing for his own talk to the CPAC crowd. At about 2 PM, he entered the lobby of DC's Omni Shoreham to the cheers of some 200 screaming, sign-waving supporters-who presented a stark contrast to Romney’s faithful, who wandered dejectedly through the lobby. Alexandra Smith, an 18-year-old Catholic student, was typical of them. She said she began receiving texts about news reports about Romney's decision a few minutes before the CPAC speech but didn’t know whether to believe them. But when Romney began talking and referred in his speech to this not being 1976, when Reagan went all the way to the convention, she said she knew. "I'll sit home on election day," she said. "There's no conservative [left]."

Here's my formidable NEWSWEEK colleague Howard Fineman with the Romney postmortem. In case you're wondering, I agree with his take. If Romney had stayed true to himself from the start, I think he would've been a more compelling candidate. Nobody blinks when you reinvent a business; but people aren't products, and in politics, unlike commerce, authenticity counts. Would 'the real Mitt' have won? Who knows. But I do suspect that he would've been less disagreeable than McCain or Giuliani among "true conservatives." And in this scrappy, sloppy race, that might've been enough.

Here lieth the campaign of Mitt Romney, victim of the mistaken belief that the only way to succeed in national Republican politics was to turn yourself into something you are not. Or maybe the campaign revealed what his closest friends never imaged him to be. They thought he was a decent classy guy. But maybe he really is a soulless throat-cutter who would do and say anything to win.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was a good fellow who didn't know enough about national politics and listened to people who gave him bad, cynical advice.

Sen. John McCain was in a good position before; now it's hard to imagine that he won't wrap up the nomination in the next week or two. His lone remaining serious opponent, Mike Huckabee, has exceeded expectations, but expecting him to be able to unhorse McCain is perhaps expecting too much.

I have covered a lot of presidential campaigns, and I can't think of one that so lost its way-so expensively-as that of the former governor of Massachusetts. A board room and business favorite, a man with a Midas managerial touch, he was widely admired and even beloved. But he was a Republican of an old moderate school-that of his own father-and, like George W. Bush, Romney the Younger decided that he had to jettison all that he was to become something that he was not.

And so it was that this square peg spent perhaps $80 million-including at least $30 million of his own money-trying to pound himself into a round hole. It didn't work. The irony of his failed campaign: if he had just stuck to selling his managerial mettle, he might well have won the nomination, given the way the country's economic anxieties have become voters' number one concern.

Read the rest here.

By Holly Bailey 

Mitt Romney has spent more than $35 million of his own cash on his campaign for the White House, but maybe somebody should lend the guy a few bucks to buy a calendar. In advance of next week's so-called Beltway primaries, where Republicans in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., will cast their votes for the nomination, the Romney campaign is apparently putting out robo-calls to drum up financial support for the former governor's campaign. A campaign aide to John McCain, who declined to be named, received one of the calls this afternoon on her cell phone and played the voicemail for reporters riding the campaign bus back into D.C., where McCain will spend the night tonight.

The message, received at 3:46pm on Wednesday, is a recording of Romney's voice and lasted about 30 seconds. "Happy Hanukkah!" the governor says, almost two months after the official Jewish holiday. "This is Mitt Romney...I am running for president because I want to keep America strong. Like you, I believe we should confront threats to American culture, values and freedom. To do that, it's going to take someone with a proven record of confronting and turning around seemingly impossible situations I have turned around tough situations in business, at the Olympics and as governor. It's about time to turn around and bring change to Washington."

Romney quickly hits up his listener for a donation. "I need your help to ensure that I have the resources to win in Washington and in other states across the country," he says on the recording. "I need your contribution to help me win." Romney even gets explicit, instructing the person on the other end to "simply press one" or donate on his Web site. "Thank you for your consideration," he says.

Why Happy Hanukkah? It's a mystery, but the McCain aide speculates that the Romney campaign got her name and number off a list purchased from an outside group. Something that's not a mystery: the aide says she has no plans to write Romney a check, not even for a calendar.

Here's NEWSWEEK's Arian Campo-Flores on what yesterday means for the Democratic race: 

Beyond the fight for delegates, though, is a far less tangible battle: one over perception. In the buildup to Super Tuesday, Obama's candidacy seemed to be surging. He scored a series of high-profile endorsements, he raised about $32 million in January, his celebrity-studded campaign events took on the character of religious revivals and he was quickly gaining on Clinton in the polls. Tuesday night's results, Clinton's advisers argue, managed to slow, if not block, that momentum. "We had to listen to two weeks of 'Oh, you're not having rallies, you're not appearing with celebrities, you're having these boring discussions about issues'," said one adviser who didn't want to be on the record appearing to gloat.

The campaign was especially gleeful about Clinton's victory in Massachusetts, where Obama benefited from the highly coveted endorsement of Sen. Edward Kennedy, as well as that of Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick. Late deciders went mostly for Clinton, advisers pointed out-proof, they argued, that voters, unlike the media, are not blinded by Obama's star appeal. The Clinton team also celebrated her victories in Republican states like Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. "This proves Hillary Clinton can win anywhere in the country," said campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe. "The voters finally got tired of the pundits and prognosticators telling them how they were going to vote."

Obama's side had its own triumphs to savor. One that was especially sweet: Missouri. Just before Obama bounded on stage in Chicago, the Clinton campaign released a statement touting her victory in the bellwether state of Missouri. "Hillary's Big Night Continues," it read. Problem was, Obama ended up winning the state. In the rear of the Chicago ballroom, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who endorsed Obama, clapped and cheered at the turnaround. "People are getting to know Barack Obama," she told Newsweek. "The story that needs to come out of tonight is that this was supposed to be the end. This was going to wrap it up for Senator Clinton." Yet as Obama senior strategist David Axelrod put it, "We took on the big bad machine that was going to finish us off on February 5 and they didn't."

Looking ahead, the Obama camp remains optimistic. For one thing, the day's results put to rest some key arguments against his candidacy. He won Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado, where independents weren't allowed to vote, thus proving that he could win without them. And he captured a healthy 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in Arizona, showing he could make inroads in a constituency that has largely aligned itself with Clinton. Now, the Obama campaign argues, Clinton's strongest states-including New York, New Jersey and California-are behind her. "We always thought she had an advantage today," said campaign manager David Plouffe. "As we started planning this, February 5 was always a tough hill to climb. Now we move on to what we thought was always a more favorable part of the calendar."

Read the rest here. 

Contributed by Suzanne Smalley

The networks are calling the West Virginia state primary convention for Mike Huckabee, which is good news, of course, for the former Arkansas governor. But it may be even more significant--in a negative sense--for Mitt Romney. The West Virginia results represent a victory of passion over organization, and it's hard to read them as anything but a repudiation of the Massachusetts pol's* efforts to rally anti-McCain conservatives around his candidacy.

When Romney arrived this morning in Charleston to address the Republican convention, it was largely assumed that he had Mountain State in the bag. That confidence was partly the product of pure investment; his campaign went to work in the state in 2006, long before his rivals arrived, and Romney had visited repeatedly over the past several weeks. And part was establishment support; Mitt began the day with 280 committed state delegates (more than Huck or McCain) and all three West Virginia superdelegates in his column. Finally, the campaign expected its superior ground game to propel Romney to victory in state's new, chaotic "convention" process, which, like a caucus, would reward organization over name recognition or momentum. “We have had the only organizational presence in West Virginia to speak of,” John McCutcheon, a state consultant for Romney, told the New York Times this morning. “It’s all Romney all the time.”

So what happened? Romney led at first with 41 percent, but failed in the second round to secure the 50 percent necessary for a win. Supporters of McCain, who crashed and burned in the first round, may have joined forces with Team Huckabee in the second to put Huck over the top, 52-47. “Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain’s inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney’s campaign of conservative change,” said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. No response yet from the McCain or Huckabee camps.

All due respect to Madden, c'est la vie caucus. What's clear from the results is that, despite his advantages, Romney was unable to absorb enough Southern conservatives into his coalition for a majority--even in a state where McCain had minimal support. That doesn't bode well for Romney's chances in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri--all hard-fought Dixieland contests where Mitt is hoping that right-wingers will catapult him to surprise first-place finishes as their anti-McCain candidate of choice. If the West Virginia pattern extends to stronger McCain states (like those listed above) Huck will likely continue to split the reliable right vote with Romney and pave a path to victory for the Arizona senator. Huckabee's early upset may even embolden his troops to turn out in great numbers across the South, further diluting Romney's share of the vote.

All in all, not the best way for Romney to start the day.

Heading into Super Tuesday, the Democratic contest is a) close, b) complicated and c) nowhere near the end. But the Republican race, which only weeks ago had seemed wide open, is, well, d) none of the above.

After Florida, John McCain has emerged as the clear frontrunner, expanding his national lead from an average of five percent to a current margin of 19 and securing the poll position in most of the 21 states set to vote. What's more, in 8 of those primaries, caucuses or state conventions, the winner gets all the delegates (no dividing up the spoils, like the Dems.) Meaning, as Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes, that "it is going to be easy for a candidate to build up a big delegate lead on Tuesday night and, combined with winning some big states, credibly declare himself the party’s presumptive nominee." Coincidentally, that's precisely what McCain plans to do. 

Even a cursory look at the current polling shows the daunting challenge facing Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as they try to win enough delegates to keep their campaigns alive. If McCain takes the gold in the states where he currently leads, he'll wake up Wednesday with between 512 and 600 additional delegates; combined with his current total of 93, that puts him pretty close to the 1,191 need to clinch the nomination—with no sign of slowing down. Barring some sort of divine intervention, Romney, who has taken pains this week to depict himself as a true conservative alternative to "liberal" maverick McCain, will probably snag between 150 and 350 delegates; Huckabee, between 34 and 100.

As you can see, there's some wiggle room. If the fates conspire against McCain and in favor of Romney--and by "fates" we mean the toss-up states of California, Georgia, North Dakota and Montana--it's possible that Mitt will finish within 100 delegates of Mac, revive his flagging bid and continue the contest indefinitely. (Hooray.)  But that's the least likely scenario. Chances are, McCain, who leads narrowly in the biggest battlegrounds, will win the most states, the most delegates and the most front-page stories--making it near impossible for Romney to kickstart a comeback.

With only hours to go before polls open, here's a deeper look at the lay of the land, according to interviews, polls and published analysis.

And they're off!

TOSS UPS: 351 delegates
California (173), Tennessee (55), Georgia (72), North Dakota (26; no data), Montana (25; no data)

MCCAIN: 512
Lean: Missouri (58), Minnesota (41), Alabama (48), Delaware (18)
Likely: Oklahoma (41), New York (101), New Jersey (52), Illinois (70), Connecticut (30), Arizona (53)

ROMNEY: 184
Lean: Colorado (46), Alaska (29), West Virginia (30)
Likely: Utah (36), Massachusetts (43)

HUCKABEE: 34
Likely: Arkansas (34)