Dave Weigel looks into why Huntsman is having difficulty competing with Paul in New Hampshire:

In fact Paul’s supporters, die-hards and recent converts, are almost insulted when you ask whom else they like. Ken Akiyama, who came to the rally wearing a “Veterans for Ron Paul” shirt and camo pants, discovered Paul on a combative O’Reilly Factor interview. His candidate had nothing in common with Huntsman.

“I stopped looking at Huntsman when he said we’d show other nations what it meant to be a friend of America,” he said. “That’s arrogant and revealing.”

Other Paul voters ran down the weaknesses in the Huntsman pitch. He hadn’t ruled out war with Iran. He didn’t talk about sound money. He pandered, and Paul didn’t. I talked to Teshia O’Keefe as she and her friend Kristin rolled up a 4×12 homemade Paul sign. She, too, only discovered Paul after 2008. Her big issues were the National Defense Authorization Act and the wars. Why would she ever back Huntsman?

All of this is perfectly understandable. Antiwar voters shouldn’t support candidates who can’t shut up about how willing they are to attack another country. It’s an understatement to say that Huntsman didn’t rule out war with Iran. He didn’t rule out a ground invasion of Iran as part of launching an unjustified attack. Mr. Akiyama’s statement might seem strange to someone who hasn’t paid close attention to what Huntsman has repeatedly said at debates and other events. When Huntsman has talked about “showing the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States,” he has been referring specifically to U.S. support for an Israeli military attack on Iran. It’s not news that Huntsman is failing to repeat McCain’s success in New Hampshire, but probably the most remarkable aspect of this is that Huntsman is underperforming with antiwar voters compared to McCain in 2008.