From last night’s Special Report with Brit Hume:

—On the Republican Primaries—

HUME: Your thoughts on why it is that Mitt Romney, who’s got people to recognize him at least, can’t seem to get any traction?
MARA LIASSON: You know, it’s puzzling. I mean, why would Rudy Giuliani, somebody whose views are so liberal compared to the typical Republican South Carolina voter be at the top of the heap and Romney who has, you know, now changed his views to become much more in line with that kind of voter, is not? I mean, maybe it’s his Mormon religion — if there’s anywhere you would expect that to hurt him, it is in South Carolina.
But, look I think this debate is very, very important for all the reasons we were just discussing . . . people are going to hear a lot about Giuliani and abortion, they’re going to hear a lot about the Confederate flag, they’re going to hear a lot about issues that are of particular interest to South Carolina Republicans and I wouldn’t be surprised if you see some kind of sorting out in these polls after tomorrow night.
BARNES: You know I can tell you why Rudy’s running ahead of Mitt Romney. He’s a national hero, or at least was after 9/11 and Romney is not. Look, Romney, we ought to learn a lesson from this too, Brit, and that is who is the leading money raiser among Republican candidates? Mitt Romney. Money does not equal support. They are two very different things. You can raise a ton of money, as he has as a former businessman and investment banker, and it doesn’t mean he has support. There’s something holding voters back, though.
SAMMON: His success is not limited to money. He was widely seen to have won the first debate, he wins straw polls. I think the guy is for real and to count him out at this stage of the game I think would be a big mistake.

—On Iran—

LIASSON: Look, I think talking to Iran is talking to Iran. I mean, it’s clearly a shift and something good may come of it or nothing may come of it at all, but what I think is interesting is the premise of talking to Iran about Iraq and our ambassador in the region, Ryan Crocker, has said this, is that somehow the U.S. believes that Iran has an interest in a stable Iraq. . . .
Maybe they want to see Iraq as destabilized as possible, partly in order to push the American forces out and also to extend their own control there. But I think that’s an assumption that is definitely unclear. What kind of Iraq does Iran want? And are they willing to work with us to create stability there?
BARNES: Look, look, I don’t think that’s unclear at all. We see what the Iranians have done in Iraq. They sent in weapons — they send them in, they were used against Americans, to kill Americans. They want to destabilize Iraq. And for our State Department to act as if — and I’ve heard State Department officials say this as you have Brit, to say that, well, it’s really in the best interest of the Iranians to have a stable Iraq, well, nobody told the Iranians.