Even in the accelerated age of the internet, 96 hours isn't too long to wait to assess the impact of a major event in a campaign. So it goes with Mitt Romney's celebrated speech last week. On the whole, the speech was well received by those in the GOP-conservative community, including Fred Barnes, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and Peggy Noonan. But it's unlikely to help Romney nearly as much as advertised.

First, Romney suffered greatly from the way the speech was billed. In 1960, JFK's speech became known as the "Houston Ministers Speech"­ the image was of a courageous candidate standing up to his bigoted foes. In contrast, through no fault of his own, Romney's address got billed as his "Mormon speech." According to a Pew poll taken before the speech, only 42% of the electorate even knew Romney was a Mormon beforehand. Now, the figures will go higher. Maybe that was inevitable but it's an open question whether Romney wanted to take the major moment of his campaign and turn it into a coming out party. The image of Romney and Mormonism are now linked in the public mind. That may not be a total electoral minus, but it's not a plus either.

Second, maybe Romney figured he had to give this speech to revive his fortunes in Iowa, where a large portion of the GOP caucus electorate is composed of evangelicals. But it will hurt him in New Hampshire, where the GOP electorate is far more secular. Romney had forged a lead in the Granite State largely because voters there thought they were supporting the same moderate businessman who had run neighboring Massachusetts effectively for four years. The man last week spouting theology is not a Mitt Romney they ever saw before and they are unlikely to take to it.

Finally, there were those, such as Buchanan, who compared Romney's speech favorably to JFK's. Not a chance: Almost 50 years later, we're still talking about Kennedy's speech and some can quote it. ("I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic.") Four days later, it's hard to find anyone who can remember anything specific that Romney said. It's true that the times are different, but good politicians adapt themselves to their eras. Romney's speech doesn't look like it will stand the test of a week, much less of time.

That isn't to say Romney still couldn't win the nomination which, in turn, will force a reexamination of what this speech accomplished. (Would we be taking about JFK's speech if he had lost the presidency?) But the hunch here is that if Romney comes back in, say, Iowa, it will have a lot more to do with the current attacks from all sides on Mike Huckabee than anything Romney said last week.

To read Steven Stark's complete "Presidential Tote Board" blog, go to www.thephoenix.com/toteboard/