Sarah Lai Stirland penned an article for Wired Magazine with an interesting take on Romney’s win in Michigan. It’s worth a read…

If there’s any consensus in the blogosphere on what Mitt Romney’s win in Michigan means for the 2008 election, it’s this: That he should have run his campaign the way he did in Michigan from the start.

The former governor of Massachusetts beat Republican senator John McCain of Arizona with 39 percent of the vote. McCain had 30 percent and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee came in with 16 percent.

“With hindsight, I think there was a better way for Romney to position himself: as a conservative and supremely knowledgeable expert on the economy, as George Bush’s heir as a vigorous defender of the U.S. in the war against Islamic terrorism, and as a person who is himself a social conservative — just take one look at his family portrait — but who doesn’t talk much about those issues except in the context of the constitutional philosophy which will guide his appointment of judges,” wrote John Hinderaker, a lawyer and founder of the conservative blog Power Line. “I think if he had followed this route, he would have been truer to himself and more credible to voters.”

New York magazine columnist and former Wired magazine writer John Heilemann says that Romney “probably” should have always run as “the politician he once was,” but that it was probably his pandering to the economically depressed Michigan voters that helped push him to victory. … Continue reading

It seems clear that the Republican nomination is still pretty much up for grabs. Democrats are pushing for a liberal in sheep’s clothing. This is getting interesting.