I’ve got a quick hit in the Post today, “defending” Blago:

ANY thoughtful consideration of Illinois’ Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged crimes would find that, compared to many other governors and legislators considered “clean,” Blago is an out-and-out straight-shooter.

For instance, when New York’s then-Gov. George Pataki wanted a third term back in 2002, he had to pony up — but not out of his own pocket. He cut a deal with Dennis Rivera, president of 1199/SEIU, for $1.8 billion in raises for health-care workers — a bribe drawn straight from the public fisc.

All politics, after all, is the practice of distributing “fu**ing valuable” things — and just not giving them away for nothing. Blagojevich’s was a victimless (alleged) crime. Like Eliot Spitzer’s. In both cases, at least it wasn’t taxpayers getting screwed with their socks on.

In my Post column today, I look at McCain’s continuing weakness with the base:

McCain’s strength, early on in the night, manifested itself most clearly in the northeast, where he racked up his first sound victories - that is, ones where he was able to break the 50-percent mark.

States like Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and New York gave the Arizona senator comfortable margins of victory over his nearest competitor in the region, Mitt Romney.

But these states don’t represent the heart of the Republican Party - they hardly ever end up painted red on election nights these days. They may represent delegates in the primary process, but they don’t tell us anything about the senator’s ability to rally the base.

In the southern states, which do make up the heart of the Republican Party, McCain found himself slogging it out with Evangelical candidate Mike Huckabee last night.

As of this writing, Arkansas had been called for Huckabee (the hometown boy, by a lot), as had Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee (by smaller margins).

The results down South once again showed McCain’s weakness with the base. In Georgia, for instance, exit polls found McCain losing conservatives (67 percent of the primary electorate) to Huckabee by 21 percent to 38 percent. In fact, McCain was third among conservatives, with Romney garnering 37 percent of their votes.

Frankly, I’m not sure this can be overcome. McCain had his chance to be conciliatory toward the right between Florida and February 5; instead, he chose to act his obnoxious, arrogant self, smirking his way through the Reagan Library debate and unveiling that appalling line about “patriotism, not profit.” McCain the underdog has its appeal (though, not to me). But McCain the frontrunner is just a disgusting spectacle.

For the first time in a long time, the GOP may actually nominate the less likable candidate this time around.

In today’s New York Post, I look at why Rudy Giuliani ran a campaign that deserves to lose:

TOMORROW in Florida, Rudy Giuliani will make what is expected to be his last stand of the ‘08 race. What went wrong?

As an early (2006) believer in his capacity to become this race’s frontrunner, I’d have to say that he’s run a campaign that deserves to lose.

While he focused strategically on Florida and the Feb. 5 states, he undermined this by pitching his campaign thematically to Iowa and other parts of the GOP least likely to vote for him.

My conclusion: The best thing Giuliani can do now is to bow out gracefully should he come up with anything less than a win tomorrow. He had his chance and wasted it: The least he can do now is stop wasting our time.

My column from this morning’s Post:

January 16, 2008 — ‘WELL, my friends, for a minute there in New Hampshire I thought this campaign might be getting easier,” John McCain started off, as he conceded to Mitt Romney last night.

They were pretty much the only words the Arizona senator managed to get out of his mouth before Romney ran him over by starting his victory speech - contrary to convention - before his opponent could even spend a few seconds on national TV brushing off the dust of ignominious defeat.

Mitt’s message: Mac is most definitely not back.

…
Perhaps Romney’s personality just appeals more to Republicans than does the sometimes cantankerous McCain’s. But Romney also had something of a revival on the campaign trail in Michigan. Talking about the woes of the auto industry, and what he promised to do to make them go away, Romney seemed passionate and animated and genuine in a way that he hadn’t before in the campaign.

Of course, a marginally more sincere Romney — one still lying to Michiganders that they’re auto industry can come back — may yet be someone for whom few of us will wish to vote. But it’s a welcome departure from the utterly horror-show-like Mitt of 2007.

My Post column this morning gives a breakdown of Iowa:

IOWA is one strange bag of corn. First off, only one candidate has ever won the Iowa caucus and gone on to win the presidency in the same year: George W. Bush. Second: Various candidates who don’t win the caucus are liable to find reason for cheer. On the GOP side last night, while Mike Huckabee certainly has plenty to celebrate, they were also cheering over at John McCain and Rudy Giuliani headquarters. This is a three-man race now - and a two-man race to see who will stop Huck.

From there, I go candidate by candidate.

A few points, though, that I didn’t have space to make:

* What a refutation of the McCain-Feingold-Media theory of American democracy — that it’s all about the money. Romney proved you can’t buy elections in America. It’s been proven a thousand times before, of course, but here’s a great reminder. What irony that Huckabee’s penniless victory will do so much to benefit Mr. Maverick.

* On Ron Paul: With 10% of the vote, a higher place than Rudy Giuliani in the Hawkeye State, and lots of cash in the bank, what possible criteria can justify excluding him from future debates? None, I’d say. Let the man in.

* Of course: Barack Obama winning is huge, not just for this primary, but for America. It’s been said before, but having a black candidate who’s not just “the black candidate” is an amazing moment in American history. For it to break out in rural, lily-white Iowa is all the more amazing. I confess I’m rooting for Obama to win the primary. As a registered Democrat, I expect to vote for him February 5. Honestly, his rhetoric is much better than his policy. But given the alternative of restoring the Clinton dynasty or — retch — voting for John Edwards, I’ll pick the hopemonger.

* Lastly, another big loser last night: Michael Bloomberg. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the candidates who would create room for a Bloomy run on the Right. Clinton and Edwards are the ones who would create that space for him on the Left. Two of those four candidacies died last night: Edwards and Romney. Huckabee is essentially implausible as the nominee in the GOP. Clinton is in trouble. I actually don’t believe there’s space in the race for Bloomy no matter what (I get tired of saying it, but the third-party space in America exists in the Dobbs-Buchanan center, not in the Bloomy-centrist-journalist center), but a run just got a lot less likely.

In today’s Post, I argue that Mitt’s Mormon speech will be of little to no use. The real problem is his flip-flopping:

ON Thursday, at the George H.W. Bush presidential library in College Station, Texas, Mitt Romney will deliver what’s being called his “JFK speech.”

Unfortunately for Romney, he’s trying to deal with a John F. Kennedy problem - a nation uneasy with the religion of a serious presidential candidate - when his real weakness is a John F. Kerry-type woe. Like the presidential candidate who “voted for it before I voted against it,” Romney is seen as a flip-flopper whose only guiding principle is personal ambition.

Romney & Co. seem to have panicked quite thoroughly over Mike Huckabee’s rise in the polls. Instead of a well-funded campaign of attack ads to take down the so-far unscrutinized Huckabee, the Romney campaign has decided they’d be better off putting the Mormon issue front and center for at least a week (it’ll probably be more like two) in the home stretch before Iowa votes on January 3.

There’s a phrase that describes that: political suicide.

My latest in the N.Y. Post:

SEN. John McCain has a problem: Some of his supporters have decided to run ads boosting his campaign down in South Carolina.

Why is that a problem? The group running the ad is endrunning McCain’s beloved campaign-finance restrictions. So the senator can either admit that the “independent groups” he’s spent so much time railing against aren’t really an existential threat to American democracy, or he can relentlessly denounce his own supporters for having the temerity to try to get their candidate elected.

He’s chosen the latter option. But instead of proving how principled he is, he’s merely helped demonstrate how counterproductive his brand of speech regulation truly is.

Yes, I know: Me hating on John McCain. You’ve seen it before. But the irony of this latest episode is so delicious I’m worried about being too full for Thanksgiving dinner.