McCain’s media running mates

There’s only one statewide newspaper in New Hampshire, the conservative Union Leader. It’s already endorsed John McCain, it’s already run an editorial instructing its readers to stay away from Mitt Romney (as has the liberal Concord Monitor), and it’s got a full-throttle McCain special running right now.

The Monitor has a story similar to the Union Leader’s. And the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh, whose paper has also endorsed McCain, weighs in with a column sympathetic to McCain as well. It’s possible that Romney could withstand this low moment in his campaign — but he’s only got five days for it to blow over.

Of course, the media have a long-standing love affair with McCain — nothing new there. McCain has been known to jokingly call the media his “base.” McCain’s finish in Iowa was mediocre at best (yes, I realize he sort of but not quite wrote the state off; but you don’t want to be neck and neck with Fred Thompson, for crying out loud), but the media are spinning it in his favor.

On the other hand, there’s no better constituency for McCain than New Hampshire’s libertarian, secular Republicans. They went for him over George W. Bush in 2000, and it would be no surprise if they go for him next Tuesday.

The difference is that McCain had nowhere else to go after his victory eight years ago. This time, it may be Romney who has nowhere else to go.

I’m guessing the Sunday Globe will front the results of one last pre-New Hampshire poll. I’m also guessing that Romney won’t like the numbers.

Eats shoots and leaves

Don’t know whether Howie Carr was tired or a Boston Herald copy editor has never heard of the term “plug ugly.” But an extra a misplaced comma provides an unintended bit of hilarity in Carr’s column today: “Mitt not only got his teeth knocked out by Mike Huckabee, but the Huckster and his new plug, ugly Ed Rollins, mussed up his hair pretty good, too.”

The speeches

Two quick observations about Barack Obama’s speech. First, he was far more uplifting and forward-looking than either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton was able to manage. Second, you could actually see quite a few people under 50 in the room. My only reservation was that he gave it the full Obama, when something a little more conversational and television-friendly might have been called for.

Clinton was fine, though she seemed exhausted, reminding people “I am so ready to lead” whenever she couldn’t think of something to say. It’s got to be a difficult moment for her — the way the calendar has been set up, she could find herself swept out of this very quickly.

As for Edwards … well, I suspect you can always get 30 percent of Democrats to go along with an old-fashioned, populist, pro-union message. But you’ll never get much more than that. It was interesting that he invoked Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. They’ve been out of office for some time now, haven’t they?

Mike Huckabee gave a good speech, but I can’t imagine him playing well in New Hampshire. Pat Robertson gave everyone a scare in Iowa in 1988, but didn’t go any farther. What’s inexplicable is that Mitt Romney apparently timed his speech to coincide with Huckabee’s so that he wouldn’t be on television. How is that a good idea?

Romney finds himself in the same position as Clinton. If John McCain is able to play his mediocre finish in Iowa into something approaching momentum (and the media are going to help him do that, which you could see in the coverage tonight), he might win New Hampshire and end Romney’s candidacy. Just like that.

And it’s Obama

It looks like everyone is calling the Democratic caucuses for Barack Obama. Predictions are futile, of course, but that would seem to bode well for an Obama victory in New Hampshire. And if that happens, wouldn’t Clinton’s campaign be close to over? Especially if John McCain’s uninspiring finish in Iowa moves New Hampshire independents to pick up Democratic ballots next Tuesday? I know, I know. I’m getting away ahead of events here. But still.

Mapping the candidates

This map on WashingtonPost.com is a hoot. Click on the candidate, and you get lines showing where he or she has been and a brief explanation of the campaign’s geographic strategy. But why so sparse? I’d have loaded in any previously published stories, photos and videos from those locations in order to turn this into something readers would stay with for a while. Still, it’s a good example of graphical journalism.

Democrats tied

Chris Matthews and company were very excited earlier tonight, claiming that Barack Obama was going to win, followed possibly by John Edwards, with Hillary Clinton coming in third. Not that anyone had actually voted.

Now, with nearly a quarter of the vote counted, Obama, Edwards and Clinton are virtually tied, with Edwards holding a slight edge — 32.62 percent to 32.2 percent apiece for Clinton and Obama. (The numbers are being continually updated, so they’ll have changed by the time you click.)

Mike Huckabee is beating Mitt Romney 36 percent to 23 percent at the moment. But John McCain may have a hard time claiming he’s the real winner if he comes in behind sleepy Fred Thompson.