"I should have been warned off by the teaser: 'Someone has to win the nomination. It might as well be Jon Huntsman.' Last I checked, 'might-as-well' doesn't win many primaries. Reporter Matt Bai manages to deliver more than 6000 words on Huntsman without providing a single practical reason why anyone, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, might possibly consider voting for him. Whether this is because Bai simply isn't interested in actual positions on the issues or because Huntsman just doesn't have a platform to campaign on - or some evil toxic combination of both - is hard to say. But the result is just plain baffling. Bai quotes Huntsman as saying 'I think what's going to drive this election, really, are two things - authenticity and the economy' - and then proceeds to write a profile that doesn't contain a single iota of insight into Huntsman's views on any economic policy issue. If Huntsman isn't interested in delineating a stance on these issues, then why is Bai bothering to cover him? And if Bai isn't interested in trying to discern what Huntsman's stance is, why is the New York Times publishing him?"