Mitt Romney's year-end campaign-finance report is in -- with two and a half hours to spare! -- and shows that he had contributed $35.3 million of his own dough as of Dec. 31, with almost all of it spent, along with the $54m in contributions he received over the course of the year. (He had just $2.4m left on hand.)

$35 million before the caucuses and primaries started.

That's more than I had guestimated. He's put a lot more in since then, advertising in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida... and he's still going at it, with California ads going up.

Much more analysis later, rest assured....

"One of the two great regrets I have in life is I didn't serve in the military. I'd love to have, but I don't believe that you have to have served in the military to be a great commander in chief or to be a great foreign policy expert."

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix, I look at the money that came and went among Massachusetts' officeholders, and lobbyists, in Deval Patrick's first year in office. It's out tomorrow, and online now:

Cash Carousel -- Many things changed this year on Beacon Hill, but not the power of the almighty dollar.

In articles like this one 14 months ago (in which I mistakenly predicted that Rudy Giuliani would not run -- but really, what's been the difference?), I predicted in essence that Romney's path to victory, if there was one, was to solidify his role as the anti-McCain and then hope that the movement conservatives would move heaven and earth (and millions of dollars) to kill the Arizona Senator. Because, they hate McCain.

I suggested then that, if the race eventually came down to McCain and Romney, those movement conservatives would toss their millions into 527s to Swift Boat McCain.

Well, tonight the race officially came down to those two, and it's starting. Mark Halperin reports that one of those conservative orgs, Citizens United ("a conservative grassroots advocacy organization") has made a "six-figure" ad buy on FOX News "comparing McCain to Hillary Clinton," and calling McCain "surprisingly liberal." Halperin wonders if this might be the start of "a major conservative effort to stop McCain in favor of Romney."

If so, don't be surprised if the attacks get more personal and more vicious very quickly -- with McCain having very little time or money to effectively counter the attacks before Super Tuesday.

I don't think it will stop McCain from winning the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. With a wink from Mitt.

Is Ted Kennedy about to endorse Barack Obama? That's the rumor, being pushed particularly by Mark Halperin -- and there doesn't seem to be much denial from any involved parties.

The endorsement would be fairly surprising and extremely significant, it seems to me. And, it would certainly add intrigue to the "Can Obama Take Massachusetts?" storyline I wrote about in the current issue of the Phoenix.

Globe political reporter Lisa Wangsness has a similar story in today's paper, which makes no mention of the Senator Ted rumors.

Check out the anger -- and lack of confidence revealed in this poll conducted for WBZ right after the announcement of the big settlement. Two-thirds disapprove of the settlement. Three-quarters think Big Dig contractors should be held criminally liable. Three-quarters think Bechtel Parsons Brinkerhoff should be banned from future state or federal contracts.

And how safe do people feel driving in the tunnels?  Not so much.

7%  Very safe

43%  Somewhat safe

35% Not very safe

14%  Not safe at all

The other candidates laid off of Romney tonight, and it really helped him -- he tends to do very poorly under attack. I tend to agree to an extent with Chuck Todd, who said after the debate on MSNBC that the candidates were restrained because this debate was their introduction to most Florida voters, unlike IA/NH/SC, where the candidates had campaigned so long the final debate was more like a closing argument. Still, I would have expected Guiliani and Huckabee to go after Mitt and McCain more than they did.

A few specific thoughts and observations:

--Huckabee was absolutely right that as recently as their Michigan debate, the other candidates were all sunny optimism about the economy. He should have made the point more effectively about them, though, by saying that a quick stimulus bill is no good if you're slow to realize it's needed. Instead, he turned it into a speech about listening to the working class, and then a strange proposal to use the stimulus money instead on building a highway from Bangor to Miami. I think Florida Republicans would prefer the rebate check.

--A point made by my wife: When John McCain brags about having been involved in economic and fiscal policy since the Reagan years, shouldn't someone turn to him and say, "Yeah, you were pretty closely involved with that Savings & Loan crisis, weren't you?"

--Romney (who, in case you weren't aware, thinks that Hillary Clinton is a she-devil) pooh-poohed McCain's 'bridge to nowhere' earmark reform for reining in spending, declaring that entitlement costs are where "the big dollars" are. Oh, please, please be specific about your big-dollar entitlement cuts, Governor Romney?

--Dear Mr. Russert: Thank you for getting all the major GOP Presidential candidate on the record saying that the Iraq War was worth the "cost in blood and treasure." And as a bonus, getting Huckabee to say he thinks there were WMD, hiding in the tall grass like undiscovered Easter eggs!

--Did Mitt Romney suggest that First Husband Bill Clinton would be chasing tail all over the White House? Or did I misinterpret that?

--Romney's self-financing did indeed come up tonight, asked by Russert. Romney not only refused to say how much of his own money he's spent, but seemed unnecessarily snooty about it. He'll report at the required deadline and not a moment sooner, he said, and he's not concerned with what the voters think. Russert all but accused him of trying to buy the Presidency. Romney pointed out that others have spent even more outrageous personal fortunes than he has. And then, instead of berating Mitt over it, Huckabee made a really bad, uncomfortable joke about it! Oh Huck....

Rudy Giuliani, who led in the South Carolina polls as late as October, finished with a humiliating 2% there, and got just 4% in Nevada -- giving him four sub-5% performances out of five contests. (And probably five out of six -- Wyoming, where he got no delegates, doesn't seem to have released actual vote tallies that I can find anywhere.)

His best showing was 9% in New Hampshire. That's also the only time he beat Ron Paul, who finished with 8%. Giuliani topped Paul there by about 2000 votes.

In fact, Rudy's 4th-place showing in NH is his only finish higher than sixth place. Tallying together Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, we find that Paul has received roughly 75% more votes than Rudy G. -- roughly 105,000 to 60,000.

But hey, it's all about Florida 10 days from now, right?

Going into today, the RealClearPolitics rolling average of polls in Florida had McCain 23%, Giuliani 20%, Romney 18%, Huckabee 17%, Thompson 7%, Paul 5%.

My prediction: Giuliani beats Paul in Florida, but fails to reach double-digits. Anyone disagree?

Mitt Romney, seeing disaster unfolding in South Carolina, spent much of the past week trying to mitigate the damage by pretending he cared more about the Nevada caucus than the SC primary. Don't buy it.

Romney has been working on winning South Carolina since at least August, 2004, when he opened a state political action committee there (Commonwealth PAC South Carolina). It's been a critical part of his campaign strategy all along, and even moreso once he decided to veer rightward toward the opening for a "conservative alternative" to frontrunners McCain and Giuliani. The right-wing opening is primarily in the southern states.

He fought to win county straw polls. He fought for endorsements. He began advertising in SC around Labor Day, and ran as many ads there as every other candidate combined. He spent lots and lots of time and money in that state. And he lost it badly.

The good news for Romney is that Fred Thompson is done -- whether he officially drops out or not, he has no money and no interest and will no longer be a factor.

Romney certainly still has a path to victory. [Note: a possible path; I still predict, as I have all along, that McCain will be the nominee.] Always bear this in mind: In a war of attrition, the guy with a quarter-billion dollars in his pocket has a distinct advantage.

Nevertheless, this is a very bad day for Romney, despite what he might say.

The picket line, that is. He'll do Jay Leno tonight, on the eve of the South Carolina and Nevada votes.

There's outrage on the conservative blogosphere over Jonah Goldberg's appearance on The Daily Show last night (mostly on Goldberg's home base, National Review Online). For those blissfully unaware, pseudo-intellectual conservative Goldberg has written a new book arguing -- I kid you not -- that liberal American politics and European fascism are one and the same thing. The book has been given far more serious consideration and review than it deserves, to which Goldberg and his pals invariably respond with hue and cry at the reviewers and journalists not taking it seriously enough.

Goldberg went on Jon Stewart's show yesterday to plug/discuss the book -- Stewart frequently has conservatives on, but since he's returned to the air that's pretty much all he's had on, since Democrats, liberals, and celebrities are unwilling to cross the striking writers' picket lines.

Unsurprisingly, Stewart harshed on Goldberg. Goldberg and friends spent much of today bitching about the unfair treatment. No big deal, really -- that's what you do to sell books in large quantities while feeling superior to the bulk of humanity, I suppose.

But what caught my eye was this NRO post by its editor, conservosuperstar Kathryn Jean Lopez (emphasis mine):

I can think a good number of other friends and colleagues who have been mistreated by The Daily Show. There are some rare exceptions for the Right-minded — Bill Kristol's had decent experiences, Rick Santorum remarkably did when his book came out — but Stewart generally winds up trying to make a joke out of your or your issues, or is just downright unfair. The best shows involve some sort of smart give and take. The Daily Show isn't generally conducive to such a thing...

The Associated Press's Glen Johnson is a terrific political reporter, as everyone in this state presumably knows. He's been on the Mitt Romney trail for a while now (and much missed locally), and has written some pretty tough, negative pieces on the former Massachusetts Gov.

Well, at a press avail today, Romney tried touting that he has no lobbyists "running" his campaign -- part of his newfound anti-Washington populism message. (Try picturing Mitt and the boys with pitchforks at the gate....) And Johnson called him on it, according to this report, pointing out that Ron Kaufman, Washington lobbyist extraordinaire (and RNC committeman from Mass.) is a Romney senior advisor. Romney apparently got a little testy. (CBS News has video.)

The idea that Romney does not have lobbyists helping guide his campaign is a joke. Kaufman, of Dutko, is a senior advisor. So is Barbara Comstock, of Blank Rome. Romney's national policy chairman, Vin Weber, is a federal lobbyist. Doug Gross, Romney's Iowa chariman, is a lobbyist. His New Hampshire director, Jim Merrill, works at a law/lobbying firm. Those are just the ones I know of off the bat.

But what are facts when Romney has a point to make about himself?

Update: Here is Johnson's article coming out of the exchange.

I recently wrote that you should look to upcoming California polls to judge the dynamics of the Democratic Presidential race going forward. Well, a new CNN/LA Times/Politico poll of the Sunshine State [Correction: Golden State, duh. But it gets a lot of sunshine, right?].  says that Clinton maintains a solid lead there over Obama, 47% to 31%.

Obama already has started spending money there, putting this 30-second ad on the air in California.

McClatchy/MSNBC poll in Michigan has Romney ahead with 30%, leading McCain (22%) and Huckabee (17%).

Detroit Free Press poll is very similar: Romney 27%; McCain 22%; Huckabee 16%.

--Detroit News reports on a new poll showing Tuesday's Michigan primary a statistical dead heat between Mitt Romney and John McCain, with Mike Huckabee trailing. That's the best news Romney's had in a while; other polls (Mitchell Interactive, American Research Group) have McCain ahead there.

--The State, the biggest and most important newspaper in South Carolina, endorses John McCain.

--The Tampa Tribune doesn't like Mitt much.

--New CNN poll shows a net unfavorable rating for Romney among general voters, making him by far the least popular of the major candidates. An astonishing 62% of voters say they would definitely not vote for him in November. In head-to-heads, he loses to Obama by 22 percentage points, to Clinton by 18.

This has long been in the rumor/feeler stages, but today the AP reports that Jim Ogonowski really will run for US Senate against John Kerry.

Ogo turned out to not be a very good candidate when he ran for Congress last year in a special election, losing by a solid margin to Niki Tsongas. He didn't raise much money, never gained a strong debating presence, and couldn't seem to translate his personal story into a campaign theme.

Now he'll try running in areas far beyond where his local name recognition means anything, in far more heavily Democratic parts of the state, in what will be a huge Presidential-ballot turnout, against an incumbent with enormous resources. Good luck with that.

But, at least the state GOP will have someone on the ballot.

The other candidates, in their effort to destroy Mitt Romney, have decided it's time for the next phase of their strategy: ignoring him. They went after each other far more than in previous debates -- Fred Thompson aggressively pounded at Mike Huckabee, while John McCain and Rudy Giuliani pointed out a few "contrasts" between them -- but left Romney alone. They wouldn't even really rise to the bait when he went after them.

That's gotta hurt.

I thought Freddie Ballgame was the big winner of tonight's debate, which should hurt Romney in the South Carolina polls. And I don't think McCain or Huckabee slipped up, so they should both continue to look good in Michigan and SC. Giuliani was fine, but to be honest I think even most Republicans don't want the trillion-dollar "biggest tax cut in history" that Giuliani dreamed up after getting his ass kicked in Iowa and New Hampshire, nor believe that it's any more than a ploy for votes. (And who introduces a huge tax cut plan after New Hampshire votes?)

Mitt Romney did fine tonight, I thought, but did nothing to change the dynamics of the race, and he's running low on time to do that.

--My own interpretation of the "Clinton Miracle," for what it's worth, is that Clinton voters were slightly more motivated to get to the polls (and wait in the lines) because their candidate was perceived to be in trouble, and because her passion in the last couple of days made them more certain of their choice. Add to that a certain number of women who changed their vote from Edwards to Hillary because of his asinine comment that her misty eyes should disqualify her from being commander-in-chief. Nitwit.

--According to exit polling, Romney won only among: those "enthusiastic" about the Bush administration; those wanting the next President to be "more conservative" than Bush; those who "strongly oppose" civil unions; those who want to deport all illegal immigrants; those whose household income is $200,000 or more; those who "strongly approve" of the Iraq War; and those self-described as "very conservative." Perhaps most important, Romney beat McCain 55-16 among those who said that immigration is the most important issue.

--Will Romney now turn into a global warming denier to beat McCain in auto-industry-dominated Michigan?

--If Romney drops out now, by my estimate he will have spent more than $1 million of his own money per delegate won.

--Rudy G., still trying to crack that double-digit barrier!

Much more later, I promise....

I see that Bob Novak and others are sensing a Romney resurgence in the Granite State. I suspect that's a bias of the press being bunched up in the Greater Manchester area. It's absolutely true that around there, most of the "undecided" and "leaning" GOP voters sound like they're really going to be Romney voters in the end. But outside Hillsborough county -- where Republicans care deeply about guns and abortion and armed services, and aren't looking for a "CEO candidate," McCain is going to slaughter Romney. Can Romney get enough votes in Southeastern NH to make up for it? I don't know, but I don't think the media in Manchester do either.

A similar bias is surely at work on the Democratic side. What that means exactly, I'm not sure.

Huckabee 25

Giuliani 20

McCain 19

Thompson 12

Romney 9

--Good night for McCain, I'd say.

--There were a few moments, particularly during the immigration debate, when the relatively "party faithful" candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Thompson) seemed to be saying 'Hey, let's not stomp on each other in public, fellas' to Romney and Huckabee. GOP loyalists, and there are still lots of 'em in New Hampshire, not to mention elsewere, may be starting to worry about how the nastiness may effect the party's chances in November.

--At one point, Huckabee was listing all the taxes he'd eliminate and mentioned 'death,' as in the estate tax. Fred Thompson cut in, teasingly asking whether Huckabee had just promised to eliminate death. Good enough. Huckabee picked up the gibe and pointed out that in his previous vocation he had worked on eliminating death. Thompson shot back: "Didn't work very well, sorry."

Oh dear. You see, Freddie, your good friend Bill sitting to your left was an evangelical preacher. He helped people conquer, or "eliminate" death, by bringing them to Christ, in whose grace they will live forever after the Judgment. There is a great deal written about this topic in a book that I highly recommend you not jokingly contradict if you want to be the Republican nominee for President. 

--Earlier today, the Romney campaign sent out an email to supporters, asking people to participate in a call-from-home outreach. The email header was "Rewrite History." I wouldn't use those words if I was the Romney campaign.

--Mitt Romney was forced to concede today that he was lying in last night's debate when he claimed to have never suggested, in an advertisement, that John McCain supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. In fact, he has done it more than once. Romney initially said no I never did it, then when shown the evidence said that he had never seen his own TV ads -- the ones that have him saying "I approved this message.

The fallout of all that? The words "John McCain supports amnesty" have been repeated ad nauseum in the press all day. I'd call it a win for Mitt.

--Romney's writers have come up with the rejoinder they failed to prepare him with last night, when the other candidates made fun of his flip-flopping. He practiced it twice at a town-hall meeting today, I assume preparing it for use tonight: "It's just like Washington [DC] to be more interested in the insult than the issue."

--I expect Romney to be far more aggressive tonight than last night. I expect McCain to look very comfortable. My big question is whether Giuliani, who has slipped behind Huckabee to 4th in the latest NH tracking polls, will try to shake things up at all to save his campaign.

--You have no idea what it's been like for regular voters up in New Hampshire, especially registered Independents, who have ten major candidates screaming for their attention. Every phone call is a candidate survey, an "informational" call, a media poll, an endorsement robocall....

Favorability/unfavorability, net plus/minus, based on answers of ALL New Hampshire primary voters, Rep or Dem (new CNN/WMUR poll):

Obama: +50

McCain: +49

Edwards: +26

Huckabee: +4

Clinton: -2

Giuliani: -8

Romney: -14

Hey John and Barack... are you two in luuuuuuuuuuv???

Boy oh boy do they want this to become a two-person race between them -- and without that icky girl.

I thought Edwards did very well -- I think he gave the real lefties reason to think that he'd fight harder for what they believe in than Obama. I think he might have won himself votes in western NH, which is increasingly, a la western Mass, populated with elite liberal upstate NY diaspora.

I also thought Clinton was very good -- especially when she got riled up at the boys and gave them a good talking-to about doing rather than talking (with actual specific examples).

Obama never has struck me as very good at the debates, and I thought he did better than usual. But his problem tonight was that a lot of people -- in NH and nationally -- were likely tuning in to find out for the first time what the fuss is all about with this Obama guy's supposed magical superpowers of inspirational oratory. That's a tough standard to live up to.

And you know, Bill Richardson was pretty good too, I thought. As if that matters.

If we're weeding out participants, why does Fred T. get to play when he's polling at 1% in the state and said he's not participating there and only flew in and out for the debate?

How much do the other candidates hate Mitt? They all went after him instead of the guy who won Iowa and the guy leading in New Hampshire.

Romney hurt himself coming and going, by saying 'I like mandates,' yet also refusing to concede that the Mass. health care plan actually mandates. (Suggesting that people were free to choose to just die instead, I think.)

No Qs, no discussion about the economy, the tanking of which was the big (non-political) news today.

McCain hurt Romney with the line "you are the candidate of change." That could stick.

McCain: unscathed. Rudy: good, but will it matter? Romney: helped with some voters, hurt with more. Fred: nice of you to bother. Huck: didn't matter here, but left behind words that will haunt him. Ron Paul: helped.

The Concord Monitor's first post-Iowa polling numbers have just been posted: McCain by six over Romney, the rest way back; Obama and Clinton essentially tied, with Edwards hanging around tough at 23%.  Zogby and 7News/Suffolk numbers came earlier in the day; CNN has numbers coming at 6:00 [Update: CNN's polling is almost identical to the Monitor's, with McCain by 6 and an Obama/Clinton tie], just before the back-to-back debates from "St. A's," as one of my new New Hampshire acquaintences has taught me to refer to it. (But I still can't ever seem to pronounce "Coos" correctly.)

Meanwhile, Romney won Wyoming, home state of Dick Cheney.

A lot of undecided Republicans up in the Granite State, from my conversations. Very little fertile soil for Huckabee; a lot of potential re-consideration of Rudy G., but his organization and presence is so pathetic, I doubt those sales will get closed.

Oh, and Romney's into single-toned crew-neck sweaters these days, if you're looking for something nice for his 61st birthday in March.

If --and it's a big if -- Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire on Tuesday, I'm going to tell you now how it happened. (If it happened.)

It's those ornery Granite Staters. And I mean that lovingly. (As readers of this blog know, I love everybody -- but especially New Hampshirites.)

One thing they hate up there is outsiders (read: national media who don't know Bedford from Berlin) pontificating about what New Hampshirites are going to do. Like they know anything about us.

Four years ago, I was on Greater Boston with the late, great David Nyhan on the eve of the New Hampshire caucus. Dean's NH poll numbers had plummeted from over 30% pre-Iowa, to the high teens. Most people (myself included) assumed Dean would end up in the 15-18 range; Nyhan correctly predicted that Dean would get a backlash boost from New Hampshirites sick of hearing that they were not going to vote for Dean. Sure enough, he got 25%, temporarily saving his campaign.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush finished third in Iowa and seemed to be limping into New Hampshire, well behind Bob Dole in the polls. He won the state. In 2000, the media all but declared the race over after Bush dominated Iowa; suddenly every Republican in New Hampshire decided to stick it to them by voting for John McCain. And we all know what happened when the world wrote off Bill Clinton for dead in '92.

Well, now the media talk of the first 24 hours after the 2008 Iowa caucus has been pretty unrelentingly about how badly it hurt Romney, and how McCain is now likely to win New Hampshire because of it.

I was up in the great Granite State today, and there was something familiar about the buzz. It went something like: "Who the $@&#* are these people all over the TV and radio, and how &*@()# stupid do they think we are up here, that they keep saying we're all going to change our votes just because a few thousand bible-thumpers got down off their tractors long enough to vote for this clown Huckabee?"

It's just anecdotal, and it may not mean much in the end. Some of it came from diehard Romney supporters, who can be expected to feel that way. Some of it came from people who weren't and still aren't going to vote for Romney regardless. It may very well be a 24-hour bug.

Then again, if the initial post-Iowa polling in New Hampshire shows a Romney dip, as it likely will (McCain was already zipping past Romney as it was), we can expect the "Romney's dead" chorus to increase from the punditocracy. And that might get those ornery New Hampshire spines out of joint. Still a big if, but worth watching.

What the freaking hell was that holographic-pie-chart-on-a-board thing that Anderson Cooper was walking around with on CNN last night, and why would anybody think that might be more viewer-friendly than a regular screen graphic?

--Whoever wrote this a couple of weeks ago must be some kinda genius, if I say so myself:

PREDICTION On the Republican side, Huckabee wins Iowa .... For the Democrats, Iowa goes Obama-Edwards-Clinton

--Speaking of geniuses... even though I still say Hillary will win the nomination, you've got to hand it to my man Steven Stark for making Obama the favorite from the get-go.

--Judging by the turnout estimates and the entrance polls, it seems that 50,000 people under age 30 caucused for the Democrats, and 13,000 for the Republicans, a nearly 4-to-1 ratio.

--Romney and his minions were out last night saying, in just about so many words, "well, what do you expect, evangelicals are gonna vote for an evangelical." Such grace in defeat!

--Just when you think Freddie "Is The Writer's Strike Over Yet So I Can Go Back To Work?" Thompson can't find a new way to sabotage himself, he gets all over the news the day of the caucuses with reports that he's already decided to drop out. Way to inspire your voters, Fredster!

--According to reports, Richardson and Biden first-round voters -- 13% of the total according to entrance polls -- were largely obeying orders and switching en masse to Obama on the second round. The idea was to knock Edwards out, leaving an potential opening for a second-tier candidate to make a charge in New Hampshire. Obama would have won anyway, but the margin might have been half as impressive. Biden (and Dodd) had to drop out anyway, and Richardson will soon follow, so all they've done is get Mama Clinton PISSED at them for the remainder of their natural lives.

FOX News just called it for Huckabee -- we're just waiting for a final spread, but it sounds like Romney might lose by double-digits.

Meanwhile, with nearly a third of precincts reporting, Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all within a percentage point of each other. Much depends on which areas have reported and which haven't, but for the moment the closeness is remarkable to see.

...we see Romney as an appealing candidate with considerable depth on key issues. He has Michigan roots and the best understanding of the automotive industry of any candidate. He brings an analytical bent and a business executive's tools to politics, admirable traits that would bring advantage to governing.

Unfortunately, Romney hasn't campaigned hard enough on those strengths. Instead, he has panted after the GOP's most conservative values voters, taking hard-line stands on gay marriage and abortion in conflict to his earlier positions as governor of Massachusetts. The result is that many voters will wonder if they're seeing the real Romney.

Iowans can send a resounding message throughout the nation during Thursday's caucuses. It's simple: Don't vote for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney."

This week's Boston Phoenix includes an editorial begging Republicans to reject Mitt Romney, for the good of their party. It's out tomorrow, and online now:

Shameless: Mitt Romney is a liar, and Republican voters deserve better

An enemy without borders. Hate without boundaries. A people perverted. A religion betrayed. A nuclear power in chaos. Madmen bent on creating it. Leaders assassinated. Democracy attacked. And Osama bin Laden still making threats. In a world where the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who’s ready.