I found the scene from this 1974 British comedy replaying in my head this week as I followed the New Hampshire Republican primary. Although former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the contest and strengthened his frontrunner status, he suffered plenty of bumps and bruises in the Granite State. Unlike the Black Knight, he did not lose any limbs, but his victory did not come without a price.

Romney’s GOP opponents raised questions and concerns about his record at Bain Capital, charging that he actually cost Americans jobs while leading the Boston-based asset management and financial services company. The charges not only weakened Romney’s ability to tout his business experience in the campaign; they also provided Democrats with ammunition to use against him in the general election. Romney also suffered self-inflicted damage through his poor word choices at campaign events in New Hampshire.

Nevertheless, barring an unforeseen development, Romney likely will win the Republican nomination and run as the GOP candidate for president in the fall. He may have won Iowa by just eight votes, but a win is a win. Likewise, as a former Massachusetts governor, he went into neighboring New Hampshire with an advantage and was expected to win. And he did win — by double digits and despite sharp attacks from his fellow Republicans, as well as the damage he did to himself.

The problem confronting Romney is his inability to deliver a knockout punch to the rest of the GOP presidential field. Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and a re-energized Jon Huntsman all will be back for South Carolina’s January 21 primary, which is shaping up as the most brutal contest in the early stages of the campaign. And all five of Romney’s opponents could very well still be in the hunt when Florida holds its primary on January 31.

Like the Black Knight, Romney will survive through Florida and beyond, but he will continue to get beat up every step of the way and could end up as a virtual bloody stump of a candidate by the time the Republican National Convention takes place in Tampa this August.

Such a scenario has Democrats salivating, but it’s unlikely to happen. As the primary campaign continues, Romney holds a distinct advantage over every candidate in the Republican field. By far, his campaign is better funded and organized than any of the others. He has the ability to outlast every other candidate; he just needs to do so with all of his limbs intact.

# # #

The truth is we don’t know a whole lot more than we did before the caucuses. At best, the Iowa contest confirmed what we already suspected about Mitt Romney: Despite his frontrunner status, the former Massachusetts governor has yet to energize the Republican Party. He won Iowa by a mere eight votes and received just 24.6 percent of the total votes cast. These are not the types of numbers that build momentum.

Slight as the victory was, Romney can take some solace in the fact that he emerged as the winner after having trailed Newt Gingrich in most of the polls leading up to the caucuses. But Gingrich’s poor showing on Tuesday probably had more to do with the attack ads launched against him than with increased enthusiasm for Romney’s candidacy.

The caucuses also confirmed that the far right wing of the Republican Party will continue to play a significant role throughout the primary season. Rick Santorum has little chance of winning the GOP nomination, but the fact that a candidate with his conservative credentials, operating on a shoestring budget, managed to come within eight votes of winning Iowa illustrates the strength the far right has built with GOP voters. In Iowa, Santorum, Gingrich and other candidates who are more conservative than Romney received 73 percent of the vote among them. That can’t be comforting news for Romney with his meager 24.6 percent victory.

On the other side of the spectrum, although Democrats still have their work cut out for them if President Obama is to win re-election in November, the results from Iowa contained some encouraging signs. For starters, even though the caucuses were of little consequence for Obama, Democrats are boasting that 25,000 members of the party faithful turned out throughout Iowa Tuesday night to rally and plan for the upcoming campaign.

Of greater significance for both parties is the ideological gap between Romney and the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. In the general election, Romney would be a more formidable candidate than Santorum or Gingrich since his moderate positions would make him more attractive to independent voters. But to win the GOP nomination and build enthusiasm that can carry over into the general election, Romney may have to move further to the right to appease the more conservative members of his party. While this would help him win the primary, it could hurt his chances in November.

The new year, however, is just a few days old, and the road to the White House is a long one with many twists, turns and detours. The Iowa caucuses are an important part of the election cycle, but we must be careful not to read too much into them. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won Iowa, and John McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, finished a distant fourth. The New Hampshire primary is just a few days away, so we may be talking a whole new ballgame next week.

Stay tuned. It’s sure to be an exciting and entertaining ride.

# # #

Sure, we’d like our leaders to be pillars of virtue, but there have been some very effective presidents, governors and mayors whose personal lives were not exactly role models. Likewise, Perry’s gaffe in the CNBC debate was downright embarrassing, but should our judgments on the next leader of the free world be based on a 53-second YouTube moment? There must be better ways to gauge who would be a good president.

Mitt Romney would have us believe that a proven track record of running a successful business will produce similar results in the White House. It’s a message that resonates well with voters who often lament that government should run more like a business. It sounds good in theory, but how it plays out in practice is a different story.

Leadership in the public sector requires a different skill set than in the business world. CEOs can put their initiatives into action without having to negotiate and broker deals with legislatures and without worrying about transparency, public opinion polls and re-election.

Take former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine for example. With experience as CEO of Goldman Sachs, he appeared to be a perfect candidate to lead fiscally challenged New Jersey. But Corzine – even after having spent a few years in the U.S. Senate – did not have political skills that matched his fiscal experience. After a tumultuous first term, he failed to win re-election, and returned to Wall Street (and now is at the center of a major fiscal controversy).

When I was part of a new administration in Woodbridge Township, N.J., in the early 1990s, we thought it would be a good idea to tap some of the fiscal and management expertise in the Fortune 500 companies operating in the township. We invited them to explore the municipal budget and develop recommendations to run our government more cost effectively.

Their proposals would have saved money, but they were not feasible – unless we could have figured out legal and politically viable means of eliminating labor unions, Civil Service regulations, and costly programs that provided needed services, such as health-care screenings for individuals who otherwise would be unable to afford them.

So, if business skills are not the answer, what qualities should we look for in the candidates to determine who is best to lead the nation?

When I was working at the Hall Institute of Public Policy, I asked that question to Michael P. Riccards, the institute’s executive director, who also is a presidential scholar.

Leadership was at the top of Riccards’ list, but he noted that our greatest presidents not only were great leaders; they also stood for something greater than themselves. They were linked to a larger ideology.

Secondly, he said great presidents need the ability to assemble a good, working team. Like a successful baseball manager, they need to bring out the best among a group of highly talented, often egocentric individuals and convince them to work together.

Making the right judgments also helps, Riccards said, as does a little savvy – the ability to live off the capital of past presidents who laid the groundwork for programs that achieve success after they leave office. Building consensus also is critical, but very difficult in today’s political environment, he said.

Lastly, Riccards said a great president must be articulate in the media of his or her time.

I am sure there are compelling arguments for other factors that make great presidents, and I also am certain that some people would disagree with Riccards’ suggestions. But as a starting point for discussion, they are much better place to begin than Rick Perry’s debating skills or charges leveled against Herman Cain that may or may not be true.

# # #

To read it, click here.

I had the honor of presenting a paper at Glory Days in 2009, and I hope to take part in next year’s symposium.

While each of the GOP presidential contenders had harsh words for Obama, the president focused his response on Mitt Romney – acknowledging Romney’s frontrunner status and the likelihood that the former Massachusetts governor will be the Republican standard bearer in 2012.

More telling, however, was the tone of the administration’s response, delivered by Press Secretary Ben LaBolt:  “Mitt Romney’s foreign policy experience is limited to his work as a finance executive shipping American jobs overseas.”

As I wrote in an August 19 column, throughout most of his time in the Oval Office, the president has been a punching bag, absorbing hits from Republicans and occasionally from members of his own party. He doesn’t generally strike back as forcefully as he did in this response to Romney.

In that August 19 column, I was writing about the Obama administration’s quick and strong response to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s comments on the state’s loss of federal funding. Such displays from the president and his administration, however, been few and far between. To win re-election in 2012, Barack Obama is going to have to engage in street fight politics. That’s not how he got to the Oval Office, but if he wants to stay there, it will take more than eloquent speeches and a charismatic personality.

Since then, Occupy Wall Street has become a much-discussed and debated topic — first on social media pages and eventually by mainstream news outlets. The movement also has grown with increasing numbers of participants not only in New York, but all across the nation and even beyond its borders. It also has become campaign fodder for America’s most powerful politicians.

What Occupy Wall Street has yet to accomplish, however, is to have a concrete impact on public policy.

No political leaders – Democrats or Republicans – have been so moved by the demonstrations that they have taken bold actions to address the protesters’ concerns.

Meanwhile, Wall Street continues to go about its business unaffected by the constant presence of the Occupy Wall Street crowds. For the financial executives who earn their livings in lower Manhattan – and for many other Americans – Occupy Wall Street is just a spectacle; it is not a political force.

Likewise, for the media, much of the coverage has focused on arrests, violence and poor health conditions at the demonstration sites instead of the factors that spawned the movement and its growth.

Media outlets also have drawn comparisons between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movement, which added a stronger conservative voice to the American political scene in 2009. But unless Occupy Wall Street impacts public policy, the protests cannot be equated with the Tea Party.

In fairness, when the Tea Party was as young as Occupy Wall Street, its influence on public policy was minimal at best. But that changed over the past two years.

The Tea Party fielded candidates for Congress and other elected offices in 2010. In some GOP primaries, its members defeated established candidates who ran with the party’s official backing. Tea Party candidates experienced less success in the general election in November, but the base they built moved the Republican Party further to the right – and those who did win election to Congress have become a force that cannot be ignored whenever important legislation is in need of votes.

A year from now, will Occupy Wall Street be fielding candidates for Congress and U.S. Senate as the Tea Party did in 2010? My guess is that such a scenario is unlikely, but anything can happen in year’s time in politics.

An Occupy Wall Street presence on the ballot could produce several benefits. It would give the movement greater credibility and influence, much like the Tea Party benefited from its involvement in the 2010 campaign. It also would give the Democratic Party a much-needed wakeup call – just as the Tea Party did for the GOP.

In turn, American voters would benefit too. With Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party candidates on the ballot, voters no longer would have their options limited to political parties and candidates who largely have become out-of-touch. Instead, they would have an opportunity to cast votes for people – both on the left and the right — who share their issues and concerns, as well as their anger and frustration.

And isn’t that the way democracy should work?

# # #

As Tia Goldenberg of the Associated Press reported in an excellent piece on Gilad Shalit’s release from Hamas captivity, his freedom in large part resulted from “a public relations campaign that turned the Israeli soldier into an icon, portraying him as the nation’s son with bumper stickers, billboards and TV ads.”

Read Tias’s article here.

That caveat aside, it was gratifying to learn that the FBI’s July 23, 2009, raid of Doria’s home failed to turn up evidence to charge the longtime state official with any crime. And while it was a nice and unusual gesture for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to issue a letter indicating that it would not file any charges, the letter hardly rectifies an extremely unfair series of actions.

A full year and half before the U.S. Attorney’s Office issued its letter, the Star-Ledger’s Bob Braun reported that federal authorities had proceeded with the raid even though they already had learned that Doria had not accepted a bribe as had been alleged. According to Braun, a key witness had told federal authorities: “Joe Doria never saw a dime and never asked for a dime.”

Nevertheless, the FBI raided Doria’s Bayonne home and took several boxes, he immediately resigned as N.J. Community Affairs Commissioner (at the request of then-Gov. Jon Corzine), and he has lived under a cloud of sorts for over two years.

The letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office may have removed that cloud, but as another well-known New Jerseyan, former U.S. Labor Secretary Ray Donovan, said after he was exonerated of corruption charges: “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

With “They got it wrong” in the subject line, the message bashed the media for reporting that small donors have been less than enthusiastic in contributing to the upcoming presidential campaign.

“Sometimes the media gets so caught up in its own echo chamber that the storyline separates from the facts,” Rufus Gifford, National Finance Director for Obama for America, wrote in the message.

The message does not contain one word about why Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected or what he has accomplished in the Oval Office. Instead, it encourages donors to open the wallets to prove the media wrong.

To make matters worse, the news story that apparently drew the Gifford’s ire was in fact an accurate portrayal of campaign fundraising status at the time it was published. He identifies it only as a story published by an unnamed “major newspaper” with the headline: “Small donors are slow to return to the Obama fold.”

The unnamed newspaper is The New York Times and the story can easily be accessed online.

Judge for yourself.