Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Register Endorsement: How Clinton Won It and What It Means

The news last night that the Des Moines Register had endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) represented one of those rare surprises in presidential politics.

The editor's of Iowa's most influential newspaper closely guarded their pick, leaving people like The Fix to engage in rampant speculation about which Democrat and Republican would get the nod. In the moments leading up to the announcement, conventional wisdom seemed to have settled on Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). But the truth was that no one really knew.

So, how did Clinton win the Register's editorial board over? And what does it mean for her and her main opponents in the final 18 days before the Iowa caucuses?

Let's answer those questions one by one.

Knowing their backs were against the wall in Iowa (as an endorsement by the Register of Obama might well have sealed the deal for the Illinois senator in the Hawkeye State), the Clinton campaign organized a three-week blitz to court the editorial board.

Clinton and her husband met with the board over cocktails to make the case. A series of surrogates -- including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, EMILY's List chief Ellen Malcolm and Robert Kennedy Jr. -- barraged the board with calls in support of Clinton. High-level Clinton staffers -- including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, pollster Mark Penn, policy director Neera Tanden and senior adviser Ann Lewis -- met individually with members of the board to make the case.

The central argument was that Clinton -- and Clinton alone -- had the experience, both in and out of public office, to not only be elected president but also do the job from day one.

In the Register's endorsement editorial, the board validated that argument.

Here are the key lines from that endorsement (emphasis mine):

"From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency. That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it's hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead."

In practical terms what does the Register endorsement mean for Clinton's campaign?

Unlike most newspaper endorsements that are relatively meaningless in the final analysis, the Register still carries real weight -- especially among undecided Democrats. John Lapp, a Democratic media consultant who managed Rep. Dick Gephardt's 2004 Iowa campaign, called the Register endorsement the "gold standard"; Anita Dunn, a longtime Democratic operative, added: "In a race this close, the Register endorsement is the most critical validator and probably the final one pre-caucus."

For Clinton, the Register endorsement should assure a segment of those who are on the fence about her that it's OK to back her. The fact that the Register editorial put such a focus on Clinton's experience and readiness for the office is likely to convince some undecideds that even though they feel little connection to Clinton personally, she is still the right and best choice.

On a symbolic level, the Register endorsement couldn't have come at a better time for Clinton. Whether grounded in reality or not, a sense of slippage in Iowa (and nationally) had taken over reporting about the Clinton campaign. Every day it seemed the campaign was taken off message -- most notably when Billy Shaheen, a former co-chair of Clinton's New Hampshire campaign, suggested to The Post's Alec MacGillis that Obama's past drug use would be fodder for Republicans in a general election.

The Register endorsement offers a break with that past, a chance for the Clinton campaign to close strong. To that end, Clinton's campaign is kicking off a five-day, 99-county blitz of Iowa today that begins in Council Bluffs with former senator and 1988 1992 presidential candidate Bob Kerrey (Neb.) endorsing Clinton.

For Clinton's main rivals in Iowa -- Obama and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) -- not winning the endorsement can't be seen as anything other than a disappointment.

Obama's campaign felt good about their chances at the nod. The Register editorial board had shown a soft spot for fresh faced optimists when they endorsed Edwards in 2004, and all signs seemed to be pointing to Obama this time around.

Given that the Boston Globe announced its endorsement of Obama less than an hour before the Register made its announcement, it looked -- for a few brief moments -- like the storyline today would be the coalescing of support for Obama. It was not to be.

But in the wake of the endorsement, some within the Obama campaign suggested that the Register endorsement would ultimately help coalesce the anti-Clinton vote behind their candidate. The thinking goes that those who adamantly oppose Clinton will now end their flirtation with Edwards and instead choose the anti-Clinton candidate with the financial and organizational heft to battle the former first lady all the way through Feb. 5.

Maybe.

The Edwards campaign has its own spin as to why this endorsement is good news for their guy. Throughout the courtship process, high-level strategists for Edwards have privately insisted that there was no way that he would win the Register endorsement. The membership of the editorial board is completely different than it was in 2004, and there seemed to be real resistance to Edwards's "people versus the powerful" argument, they said. Indeed, in the Register's endorsement of Clinton, the board offered a slap at Edwards; "We too seldom saw the 'positive, optimistic' campaign we found appealing in 2004," the board wrote. "His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

Since the Edwards campaign believed an endorsement was out of the question, they argued that the fact that the Register had gone with Clinton and not Obama was a major relief. An endorsement of Obama would have signaled a pick between the two "change" candidates, according to Edwards's operatives, and made their efforts to emerge as the true anti-Clinton candidate nearly impossible.

To be clear, EVERY candidate wanted this endorsement and worked hard -- each in their own way -- to get it. It is a major victory for Clinton, but not decisive as it relates to the final outcome in Iowa. The Register endorsement fueled Edwards's rise in 2004, but he still came up short. Four years earlier, Al Gore crushed former Sen. Bill Bradley (N.J.) despite losing out on the Register endorsement. In fact, Clinton detractors note, since 1980 the Register has not endorsed a single winning candidate.

Sure. But you'd rather have the Register endorsement than not. Put simply: It's a very good day for Clinton, as the endorsement offers her campaign a symbolic, fresh start in the final days before the Iowa caucuses.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 16, 2007; 12:08 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Des Moines Register Picks Clinton and McCain
Next: FixCam: Week in Preview -- Lieberman Endorses McCain

Comments

Wow...to think, Patti, Ann, Mark, et. al. spent all that time kissing the proverbial rumps of the Register editors when it would have been better spent getting off their large butts walking blocks for HRC.

The endorsement is a lot of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.

When she finishes third on January 3rd, I will not be surprised. The fact is HRC is the Howard Dean of 2004 -- support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Posted by: polcamp | December 18, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I take it that Cilizza is joking when he said that Hillary swayed the Board in her favor. I will continue to believe that the Board would have made its decision based on its own observation, research etc.
Nevertheless, I will never be swayed by Hillary's contention of experience. Experience doing what? Trying to upstage the policies of the right wing? This is a woman who voted for a war against a people who did us no harm. But to make matters worse, she refused to apologize, but instead, then proceeded to blame the President using all kinds of dubious and somewhat idotic accusations. To confirm that Hillary's first vote was no accident, she again voted to brand Iran's revoluntary guards a terrorist organization with a view to fuelling a further attack by the US military against Iran. He excuse, she felt she had to do something. This comes of the heels of saying that she had been previously deceived by the President and his men into supporting the Iraq war. At the time of the latter vote, the only reference she had regarding the revolutionary guard, was what had been told to her the same [deceptive] administration. If the administration plan to launch an attack against had materialized, it would have had the backing of Hillary. It took someone else, another Democrat (ex post facto), to push through further legislation with the hope of preventing any aggressive measures by the administration against Iran. This confirmed for me that Hillary is a vulture of opportunism and not a source of experience. Remember her experience in Health Care?
A vote for Hillary for president is a vote to continue in the same path we are going, except that the Lobbyists and special interest groups will move their residence to the West Wing.

Posted by: archie136 | December 18, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"Lesbian" is not a perjorative. Some of the best people I know/knew, some of the people I've loved the most, were lesbian. If you TAKE it as a perjorative, that is (truly) YOUR problem. And "lesbians are man haters" is just a BS stereotype, which, as a man, I know to be just that.

That said, I would never vote for Hillary. Ne. Ver. She is the female Dem version of Richard Nixon. Nixon had his enemies list, HRC has the Right Wing Conspiracy. People who do not agree with you are NOT necessarily your enemies, but that fine point was lost on RMN and HRC, and now politics today is more polarized than ever, and political gridlock is the result. Hillary claims she's been working on issues for 30+ years, but how come you never heard of her until her husband was elected? She's dishonest and devoid of any principles (other than winning, much like a shark) I can discern.

If Obama or Edwards gets the nomination, the party can unite behind that candidate. If Hillary wins -- especially given the scorched earth campaign she will/has run when the going gets tough -- the party will be divided. It will be just like 1980, when pro-Kennedy Dems (like me) sat on our hands rather than support a Jimmy Carter who went out of his way to slam our candidate. The big lie is that Hillary is the most electable option the Dems have. She's the least electable -- she'll make Dems stay home and Repubs turn out.

Posted by: gbooksdc | December 18, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA should let the Clintons __who had been living for so long in vice to the extent that they completely forgot what the word MORALITY had ever meant __ continue to show the People of America their true faces. Their attacks will let Americans see by themselves how electing Obama will avoid them the disaster that the election of the Siamese Clinton couple would provoke. Their attacks constitute the best arguments for a judgment of the Americans for never vote for such a couple and for Obama supporters to move on. One hears Clintons talking again and again about EXPERIENCE. Such repetition requires the definition of Experience making difference between good and enriching experience, the experience of a good husband and parent role model, and the bad experience. The matter is about experiences, which never allow the glorification or the rewarding the unblushing liar. There are of course unenviable experiences that the Clintons excel in and which Obama needs not possess nor long for: the contempt and the deceit and vice, even if he is dubbed by the Clintons too 'green' to run for US President.

These attacks would let caucus goers who are still hesitating about Hillary Clinton, to finally make Obama their genuine candidate for the White House. The African Americans old guard, namely Andrew Young and others who are supporting the Clintons should be reminded that the Clintons' campaign allusion to cocaine, is the reminiscence of the racial belief and the deforming optic, through which the Black, the African American is seen, whatever be his highest moral and intellectual status and achievements. That is what makes the Clintons pissed-off so much so as to see in Barack Obama a 'black guy', who dare to challenge: Hillary, the wife of the "massa". Nominating and electing Barack Obama will show the entire world that the People of America had definitely turned the last page the inglorious chapter of their past and now engaging themselves in a new Revolution by opening a new page of their HISTORY for inventing a more humane society. That, once again in the United State of America the HISTORY is in making!

Posted by: lawsondaku | December 18, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

"The editor's of Iowa's most influential newspaper closely guarded their pick, leaving people like The Fix to engage in rampant speculation about which Democrat and Republican would get the nod."

The "editor's"???

"people like The Fix"?: what would The Fix's Social Security number be?

Posted by: mnaimark | December 18, 2007 6:56 AM | Report abuse

This is Clintonism at its worst. They speak the populist tongue, but when it turns out that most people are against them, they punt and run to the Establishment for help.

Clinton is a boot licker and always will be (Bill or Hillary, take your choice, same person).

Posted by: jabailo | December 18, 2007 1:11 AM | Report abuse

CC, your article opens my heart like the window opens, thank you. bswamina, you are correct, I can't wait the new Chapter, Madame President, Hillary deserved to be our 44th President, Go HILLARY 2008.

Posted by: kreisch | December 17, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Bill in the 90s debating Bush:

"experience counts but its not everything" - perfect endorsement of Obama!

"insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" - exactly, that's why we *don't* want HRC in the White House--the more things change the more they remain the same!

"we've got to have courage to change" - exactly, no Bush-Clinton dynasties Fast forward to today and the Billary robotic machine team flip flops on this entire argument and bashes Obama for supposedly lacking experience and offering change in D.C.


[paste this link, it's worth the laugh!]

We need new experience in Washington http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k

Posted by: OceanDog | December 17, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Back from Dr. visit. These personal attacks are way out of line and serve no useful purpose. Lets try and at least act like we have a little sense.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

In regards to the Register endorsement of Clinton. Maybe it is a godsend in disguise.

In fact, Clinton detractors note, since 1980 the Register has not endorsed a single winning candidate.

Who needs a woman as president when her husband kept sending her out of the States to keep her out of his election campaigns. Isn't that the reason she visited so many countries!!!!!!!!

Posted by: loraina_30 | December 17, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"MikeB

-I have a degree in English and 15 years of professional experience as a writer in several capacities.


---That's nice, dear.

- I'm sure I have read sufficiently to hold an intelligent conversation on most topics (without claiming expertise in some or most). I work in publishing, and have also been a journalist, activist, and PR writer.

--- Are you comparing creds with somebody? Me, perhaps? I was raised in the gutter by wolves, okay? I'm certainly not whipping out my CV for the likes of you and your extremely troubled pal.


- I can rebut a logically weak argument such as yours without an intimate knowledge of feminist slang.

--- Terrific muscle flexing. Now, get to the point, please. The only argument I have made is that "Mike" has been extremely rude.

- What's more, you begin by saying "I ... hope that when you describe Hillary's supporters as 'womyn' ... you are not using that word as a synonym for 'lesbian.'" As far as I am aware, MikeB never confirmed that such was his intent, yet from then on you treat it as accepted fact simply because you want it to be true.

---He didn't contradict it, either, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so.

- "And people are labeled stupid, drooling redneck women-haters, when their rhetoric about women candidates consists mainly of personal barbs such as degree-of-wrinkledness, age, and gender preference -- not just toward the candidate but toward all women who support her."

- You say this with such assurance.

--- You bet. If "Mike" -- or someone like him -- sat next to me on the bus, I'd get up and move to another seat.

- My response is that labels are never helpful in an attempt to convince another of the logic and validity of one's own position. If you are trying to make a point, pass on information, or convince the person with whom you are speaking of a point, labels and derogatory language are never helpful.

--- Funny you should say that. Even though you have been far more verbose, smug and pompous than I have, it's exactly the point I was trying to make to Mike. Do you think he got it?


-If however you are trying to throw a tantrum, please take it elsewhere.

--- Like Mike, who wants to rid the Democratic Party of wingnuts like me, it's not up to you whether I go or stay. If you don't want to read what I write, it is you who will have to go elsewhere.

"And as for Shaheen's statement about Obama's drug usage, it's a legitimate issue that some people think is important."

Like many other Americans, Obama experimented with drugs as a college student, as did both of our two most recent presidents. He has never hidden this from anyone... and anyway, it was 25 years ago. This in no way disqualifies him to president. Those who think it does - "some people" - are looking for something to pin on him. It won't work.

--- I don't care whether it works or not. I agree that most people don't care whether a candidate used drugs in college. But some people do care, and labeling them as "racist" is a very crass way of attempting to silence them. If it wasn't "racist" when it was talked about with respect to Bush and Gore, then it's not racist where Obama is concerned,either.

"I doubt that he is a scientist or a software engineer. I don't believe he even rises to the level of 'former scientist or software engineer.'"

Why don't you ask him?

--- Because "Mike" is a person of zero interest to me. When people behave that boorishly, the behavior overshadows everything else. And as a general rule, people who have professional attainments are accustomed to exercising self-restraint in their public behavior.


-You are new to this forum, and excessively impressed with your ability to 'read' people, seems to me.

--- I'm not trying to "read" anybody. I'm saying that it's not acceptable to women readers to be insulted in the extremely personal sort of way that "Mike" has done, simply because they might be gay, old, wrinkled, or because they support a woman candidate -- all subsets of people whom "Mike" has made it clear he despises.

--- And the fact that you have been posting to the blog for longer than I doesn't give you any special rights. I hope that's perfectly clear.

- I don't agree with everything he says, and sometimes don't agree with much he says, but it never has occurred to me to cast aspersions on his abilities. He seems a nice and intelligent guy

---ROTFLMAO!

-with whom I sometimes agree on some things. Without knowing him better, I do not feel able to judge his ability with computers or science. It is curious that you do.

--- Again, I have no interest in what he claims are his skills. They are certainly overshadowed by his shortcomings.

"The point is that if people are going to post in behalf of Obama's candidacy , they should probably avoid anti-gay, and anti-women slurs."

-Of course they should, as should anyone posting on behalf of any candidate. In your zeal to denigrate Obama and his campaign, however, you forget that MikeB - as I said above - is NOT an Obama loyalist, but rather a Democrat unhappy with the prospect of Hillary as the nominee.

--- And why isn't Mike speaking for himself? Are you his mother?

- As am I. As are many of us. But I'm not convinced that he is guilty of these. (See above in re: YOUR use of the word 'lesbian.')

"As for dismissing your 'legitimate concerns' about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you have some"

I have many. And they are indeed 'legitimate.'

--- Again,that's nice. Suppose you talk about them instead of talking about me, or Hillary's supporters. I'm not a Democrat, by the way.

"but they seem to have gotten lost in all mike's BS about bolshevik wrinkled lesbians."

- No, I know exactly what they are, and they have nothing to do with MikeB. I do note that you use the word 'lesbian' once again.

---It would have been Mike's job to say what he meant, not yours -- unless you are his sock puppet. He didn't contradict me. His statements about women were saliently misogynistic. That is what I take issue with. I'm sure Hillary can do without the support of people like him; Obama can do without his support too, for that matter.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 17, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris - The Des Moines Register has a dismal record on endorsing the person who actually wins the caucus - so I would say it does not carry much weight or influence. They did not choose Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, or Gephardt in 1988 - instead they went with Edwards, Bill Bradley, and Paul Simon. Some say it propelled Edwards from 4th to 2nd place in 2004 - but Kerry jumped from a distant 3rd to 1st without their help. So much for that theory. The Boston Globe, on the other hand, has a much stronger track record for endorsing winners in NH. I am thrilled they chose Obama! I've also been reading on other sites today a remarkable statistic. Obama has more experience than Abraham Lincoln had when he became president in 1860! Both men were lawyers from Illinois - both served eight years in the Illinois State Legislature - but Lincoln served only one term in the US House of Representatives, from 1847-48, whereas Obama will have completed four years in the US Senate before he is sworn in as our next president!!

Posted by: uofmdgrad | December 17, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

ebauersox - for the record, 'winngerald,' also a Clinton supporter, uses the word 'lesbian' in his 3:18 (December 16) post.
You then use it at 5:20 (12.16), 6:31 (12.16), 10:48 (12.17), and 1:46 (12.17).
And yes, I used it in my communication with you. MikeB does not use it once, despite your claiming twice that he has. (6:31 on the 16th, 10:48 on the 17th.)
Your support of Hillary does not speak well of her.

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 17, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

What's surprising about the Register picking Hillary is she voted for Iraq. She of the " if I knew then what I know now." They site her experience as a reason. What they should have looked at is her judgement. That's the quality a president needs. A president can appoint people with experience, when it comes time to make a decision, it's judgement that counts. But if the people in Iowa are as independent as the media makes them out to be, then the endorsement of The Register should matter little.

Posted by: mazd273 | December 17, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"MikeB -- if that's who mibrooks27 is -- used the word 'womyn', which is a synonym for 'lesbian.'"u

-I beg to differ. I have heard the word used by feminists who resent the inclusion of "-men" in the word "women." In the same category as "s/he" and "hisr."

"You need to read more, apparently."

-I have a degree in English and 15 years of professional experience as a writer in several capacities. I'm sure I have read sufficiently to hold an intelligent conversation on most topics (without claiming expertise in some or most). I work in publishing, and have also been a journalist, activist, and PR writer. I can rebut a logically weak argument such as yours without an intimate knowledge of feminist slang. What's more, you begin by saying "I ... hope that when you describe Hillary's supporters as 'womyn' ... you are not using that word as a synonym for 'lesbian.'" As far as I am aware, MikeB never confirmed that such was his intent, yet from then on you treat it as accepted fact simply because you want it to be true.

"And people are labeled stupid, drooling redneck women-haters, when their rhetoric about women candidates consists mainly of personal barbs such as degree-of-wrinkledness, age, and gender preference -- not just toward the candidate but toward all women who support her."

- You say this with such assurance. My response is that labels are never helpful in an attempt to convince another of the logic and validity of one's own position. If you are trying to make a point, pass on information, or convince the person with whom you are speaking of a point, labels and derogatory language are never helpful. If however you are trying to throw a tantrum, please take it elsewhere.

"And as for Shaheen's statement about Obama's drug usage, it's a legitimate issue that some people think is important."

Like many other Americans, Obama experimented with drugs as a college student, as did both of our two most recent presidents. He has never hidden this from anyone... and anyway, it was 25 years ago. This in no way disqualifies him to president. Those who think it does - "some people" - are looking for something to pin on him. It won't work.

"I doubt that he is a scientist or a software engineer. I don't believe he even rises to the level of 'former scientist or software engineer.'"

Why don't you ask him? You are new to this forum, and excessively impressed with your ability to 'read' people, seems to me. I don't agree with everything he says, and sometimes don't agree with much he says, but it never has occurred to me to cast aspersions on his abilities. He seems a nice and intelligent guy with whom I sometimes agree on some things. Without knowing him better, I do not feel able to judge his ability with computers or science. It is curious that you do.

"The point is that if people are going to post in behalf of Obama's candidacy , they should probably avoid anti-gay, and anti-women slurs."

-Of course they should, as should anyone posting on behalf of any candidate. In your zeal to denigrate Obama and his campaign, however, you forget that MikeB - as I said above - is NOT an Obama loyalist, but rather a Democrat unhappy with the prospect of Hillary as the nominee. As am I. As are many of us. But I'm not convinced that he is guilty of these. (See above in re: YOUR use of the word 'lesbian.')

"As for dismissing your 'legitimate concerns' about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you have some"

I have many. And they are indeed 'legitimate.'

"but they seem to have gotten lost in all mike's BS about bolshevik wrinkled lesbians."

No, I know exactly what they are, and they have nothing to do with MikeB. I do note that you use the word 'lesbian' once again.

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 17, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

aside of the sex scandals of the 90's, we had a pretty good economy while bill was president, and with him as an ambasador at large, i think we can gain confidence in the muslim world.

Posted by: robtcruz | December 17, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

MikeBrooks -- First off, try and remember that I don't like Hillary Clinton either. I'm not trying to get you to vote for her, I'm just trying to talk about the GOP candidates, most of whom (though not all) are pretty damn scare, IMO.

Huckabee's positions on SS are insane. Funding SS through the purported "fair tax" is ludicrous, as is that idea generally. The net result, if you're at all interested, is a HUGE shifting of the tax burden onto the middle class. Unless you make more than 500k/year, I would seriously think twice before voting for him. If McCain supports raising the cap on SS taxes, that's news to me. In the WAPO on the issues page, he explicitly says he won't raise taxes. I'll concede, however, that McCain actually cares about the solvency of entitlement programs. I respect him for that. If he wasn't such a hawk on the Iraq war, I would actually feel fine if I woke up the morning after election day and found out he was president. But, of course, he IS an unrepentant hawk.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/john-mccain/#social-security

Again, I'm not trying to get you to vote for anyone my friend. I just think it's a mistake to view the GOP in a more favorable light than they deserve.

Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 --

I hope you do vote for a Republican. And if I might make a suggestion, you should probably vote for John "Mr. Nice Guy ...Not!" McCain, who is quoted by Arthur Schlesinger in his recently-published Journal, as having made a particularly stupid and crude lesbian joke about Hillary, Chelsea and Janet Reno.

That sort of "political thinking" would seem to be more your kind of thing,rather than tedious discussions about boring issues.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Every branch of the media has glossed over two brilliant candidates from the outset. And they are Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Clearly, they have more experience, knowledge and integrity than any candidate running. On both sides. Yet, the American Idol Presidential Election is getting closer, and the media continues to feed us their daily dose of the candidates with the deepest pockets and who are owned by special interests. The American voter has become pathetic when it comes to picking their leaders. They don't do their homework. They come to their "decision" of who to vote for on sound bites, magazine covers, or TV ads. Once again, the American voter will get what they deserve, and then complain about it later when things don't quite work out the way they had hoped. And America will sink deeper into its quagmire.

I'm still full of hope, and I pray everyday that the people of Iowa are listening and get it right.

If our country was in the middle of prosperity, and our economic picture wasn't bleak with the debt we've incurred (not to mention record high oil prices)...if we didn't have our brave men and women abroad spilling their blood and losing their lives...if we didn't have Armageddon going on in the Middle East, and possible turmoil in Pakistan (a nuclear power), not to mention tensions with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, and keeping our eye on what happens with our ally Israel. If there wasn't so much critical attention needed to this world and our own country, I wouldn't really care who we elect. But we are not in a stable place as a nation, and our trust and credibility have been severely damaged around the globe. There is a clear and intelligent choice to make as Americans...and that choice is Joe Biden. Unfortunately, it looks like America will fail once again as they cast their votes for their American Idol President............sigh....very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

Posted by: kad7777 | December 17, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

bokonon13 -
Actually, MikeB -- if that's who mibrooks27 is -- used the word "womyn", which is a synonym for "lesbian."

You need to read more, apparently.

And people are labeled stupid, drooling redneck women-haters, when their rhetoric about women candidates consists mainly of personal barbs such as degree-of-wrinkledness, age, and gender preference -- not just toward the candidate but toward all women who support her.

And as for Shaheen's statement about Obama's drug usage, it's a legitimate issue that some people think is important.

I doubt that he is a scientist or a software engineer. I don't believe he even rises to the level of "former scientist or software engineer."

The point is that if people are going to post in behalf of Obama's candidacy , they should probably avoid anti-gay, and anti-women slurs.

As for dismissing your "legitimate concerns" about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you have some,but they seem to have gotten lost in all mike's BS about bolshevik wrinkled lesbians. In other words, until his most recent post, "mike" was content to substitute flatulence about women for real political differences with Clinton.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

As a long time resident of Des Moines now living in metro Boston, it was fascinating indeed to see the attention paid the Register endorsement by the national media compared to the Boston Globe endorsement. Local political observers in Iowa have long noted the Register's history of endorsing candidates who fail to win in Presidential and other political matchups. The cynics' joke often is that a candidate gets a bump by NOT receiving the Register nod. Perhaps the cluster of east coast reporters lunching in downtown Des Moines were running out of story angles as they await January 3.

Posted by: klark.jessen | December 17, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Republican men are dumber than a bag of rocks. They chearleaded this country into a useless war and trillions of dollars of debt to China. Democratic men are slightly brighter and at least they don't cheat as much on their taxes.

Posted by: hhkeller | December 17, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

ebauersox, _Colin - If it sounds as if I am trying to convince myself to vote for a Republican, you are quite correct. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I expect to do exactly that. And, I assure you, there will be millions of liberals, genuine honest-to-god liberals, that are going through the same process now. For us, the corruption and greed of CLinton, coupled with the unfettered fanaticism of her followers, is something so awful to contemplate that we will vote against Democrats across the board, if that is what it takes to ensure her defeat or cripple her in the unlikely event she does win.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

jimd, mark & others: I'll try and answer all your questions in a single comment, since it is so hard to for me to access "The Fix". The newspaper endorsements will help McCain, no doubt. The Lieberman endorsement, IMHO, will have the opposite effect in NH, and as pointed out by some Joe has turned most {I & D} voters against him, and only has the support of the far right wingers. This will probably negate, to some extent, the DMR endorsement in Iowa as well.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

_Colin - Not true! Huckabee and McCain both advocate some sort of amnesty for the parents of childen born here. McCain has even advocated going beyond that.
As for SOcial Security, if you would take the time to do even the most cursory research, you would find that privatization IS NOT what either McCain or Hickabee propose:
From Huckabee's web site:
"Personalization of retirement funds, not privatization. (Oct 2007)
Replace payroll tax & fund Social Security with FairTax. (Sep 2007)
No Congressional pensions; give them same deal as citizens. (Nov 1992)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
Maintain federal funding of Social Services Block Grants. (Sep 1999)"

AS for John McCain, he proposed increased funding for Medicare and Medicaid coupled with more overview to prevent the current outrageoud fraud and abuse of the systems. He also proposes a national health care system that is pretty close to Clinton's current proposal, but with competitive bidding and cost controls. He is opposed to privitization of Social Security, opting for raising the income ceiling for which Social Security taxes apply (identical to Barak Obama's very sensible proposal).
I am not certain, but I believe I heard Fred Thompson making very similar proposals. The "lockstep Republican's" you are referring to are Romney and Bush. The other Republican's are all over the map on just about any issue you can name.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

When I read that the Register women had endorsed Clinton, then I had an epiphany! I, too, have seen the light, at last! Hillary's vast right wing experience will allow her to lead the country smoothly as she hits the ground running. In fact, America will not even know what hit her, for the transition of power will be as if no transition had occurred at all.

From Day 1 of the second coming of the House of Clinton, everything will be ready to roll, and lock and load, and America can safely kick back and enjoy the latest sports of the day [it should be basketball season, right?].

From Hillary Day 1, we will have the same inspiring expansion of executive power and privilege, beyond all Constitutional boundaries, that President Bush-Cheney has extended. Hillary already has her "signing statement" stamps manufactured, ready to hit the ground stamping.

From Hillary Day 1, we can all enjoy the same unifying, non-partisan approach to politics that President Bush-Cheney has so generously given us during the last seven years.

From Hillary Day 1, we can have the same entertaining deceits, lies, and prevarications--by the press, that is, as they try to besmirch our noble leaders. As they have so falsely proven President Bush-Cheney to be of such a deceitful character, so will they falsely prove the same of Hillary [and Bill, lurking right behind her skirts...or someone's skirts].

From Hillary Day 1, we will sleep securely, all day long, in the knowledge that Corporate America is safe and strong, and that President Clinton-II will, like President Bush-II-Cheney-IA, be certain that we have no CEO left behind. The business of America is business, now more than ever, and only a president whom Corporate America allows to be president would be worthy to serve.

I could go on, but I'm sure the Hillary fans, whom I now so heartfully embrace, would be embarrassed if I kept gushing on so. God Bless America! [And God knows, she needs a blessing.] And God bless all you Hillary supporters who have so long endured all those unpatriotic, America-haters who have resisted her inevitability. Now I can turn my Pat-riot-ism to something that really matters--Go New England, 14-0 and counting!

Posted by: radicalpatriot | December 17, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Mikebrooks said: "Some of those ock step Republican's propose to privatize Social Security (Guliani, Romney) whereas others propose to raise the income cap subject to FICA taxes and others still propose to raise payroll taxes."

Mike -- I think you're wrong on this one. To my knowledge, NONE of the GOP nominees has provided any substantive proposal for addressing entitlements that even hints at the possibility of a tax increase. Indeed, the entire solution of all of the candidates appears to be privatization -- although Thompson has implicitly endorsed benefit cuts. I give him credit for his candor.

To your more general point that the GOP does not march in lockstep, I think you're wrong again. All of the GOP candidates, except McCain, have now adopted stringent enforcement only approaches to immigration -- in many instances abandoning previous positions to the contrary. Likewise, they all support the Iraq war and Bush's failed foreign policy vision, with Huckabee's recent criticism the only exception. These folks want to be GWB all over again. Vote for whoever you please, but have no doubt about that.

PS -- I'll grant you that Paul is different. Then again, he thinks 95% of the federal government is unconstitutional.

Posted by: _Colin | December 17, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

ebauersox -

in the 1st place, MikeB never used the word "lesbian." Do a search of this page - it's all you. To accuse someone repeatedly of something which is unproven is reminiscent of Shaheen's question to Obama about drugs. I was not originally part of this conversation, but can't avoid mentioning this. Also, if you are intent on being respected by others, you should avoid characterizing opponents as "grotesque, droolingly stupid, redneck woman-haters." Having never met MikeB in person, I can't say for sure, but that is not the impression that I have. I don't remember, but think he is a software engineer, or perhaps a scientist of some kind... hard to do that while you're drooling.

And he's not even an Obama supporter, at least not primarily. If I remember correctly, he favors Edwards. It's perhaps not that curious that a Clinton supporter would immediately seize the opportunity to attack the Obama campaign, using the juvenile language cited above, but it is I think revealing.

You are incorrect to dismiss so summarily the legitimate concerns many voters, myself included, have with Mrs. Clinton. You are equally incorrect and disrespectful to deliberately misrepresent the views of another poster in order to make cheap political points.

Full disclosure: I support Obama for the nomination, but I do not "Hate" Hillary. I simply do not see in her the kind of person for whom I hope to be able to vote. And yes, her campaign's unsubtle tactics, and those of her supporters, have been a cause of that. So what if she's a woman? Can the women's movement have succeeded at all if that's her key selling point?

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 17, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

ebauersox -

in the 1st place, MikeB never used the word "lesbian." Do a search of this page - it's all you. To accuse someone repeatedly of something which is unproven is reminiscent of Shaheen's question to Obama about drugs. I was not originally part of this conversation, but can't avoid mentioning this. Also, if you are intent on being respected by others, you should avoid characterizing opponents as "grotesque, droolingly stupid, redneck woman-haters." Having never met MikeB in person, I can't say for sure, but that is not the impression that I have. I don't remember, but think he is a software engineer, or perhaps a scientist of some kind... hard to do that while you're drooling.

And he's not even an Obama supporter, at least not primarily. If I remember correctly, he favors Edwards. It's perhaps not that curious that a Clinton supporter would immediately seize the opportunity to attack the Obama campaign, using the juvenile language cited above, but it is I think revealing.

You are incorrect to dismiss so summarily the legitimate concerns many voters, myself included, have with Mrs. Clinton. You are equally incorrect and disrespectful to deliberately misrepresent the views of another poster in order to make cheap political points.

Full disclosure: I support Obama for the nomination, but I do not "Hate" Hillary. I simply do not see in her the kind of person for whom I hope to be able to vote. And yes, her campaign's unsubtle tactics, and those of her supporters, have been a cause of that. So what if she's a woman? Can the women's movement have succeeded at all if that's her key selling point?

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 17, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

The only way Giuliani stays on top is if Mitt and Huck remain in the race to split the social conservative vote. Should he win the nomination, a significant portion of those religious conservatives GWB relied on will either sit on their hands or vote for Dobson's third party candidate.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 17, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 -- It isn't the fact that you oppose Hillary Clinton that creates the impression that you are unbalanced; it the language you use and the reasons you give.

You seem to have forgotten that you called Clinton supporters lesbians and wrinkled old hags. That's got more to do with your personal fear and hatred of women than it has to do with Hillary Clinton or her record.

My comments are not thinly-veiled and they do not bash men in general -- they bash *you*, and you only, for behaving in the disgusting -- and pathetic -- manner I've described. Most men are better than that.

I don't know where you live, but speaking as a New Yorker, I think Hillary Clinton has been an excellent senator and has represented our (mostly Republican ) state very well.

To make what you seem to believe is some kind of valid point, you need to show how and where Hillary Clinton engages in male-bashing of any kind.

If you stick to the issues, and refrain from making nasty remarks about women, people won't accuse you of being a woman-hater. As it is, what you have managed to do in your so-called advocacy is create the perception that Obama supporters are grotesque, droolingly stupid, redneck woman-haters.

Despite the fact that you write "Your entire argument for her candidacy amounts to something like 'We've never had a woman President and it's abut time' ", I have made no argument at all for Hillary Clinton's candidacy, except to say that the fact that she has won the Des Moines Register's endorsement shows her skill in getting things done.

What I am saying is that if you are going to oppose Clinton, try to base your opposition on her record, and not on the looks, age and what you imagine is the gender preference of her supporters.

I will -- if you like -- make a case against Obama's candidacy, however. Anybody who underestimates the intelligence of voters by thinking he can persuade us that inexperience is preferable to experience, needs to return to law school, where sophistry is a way of life.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 17, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Claudia, Could you imagine a Pro Life candiate being at the top of the pack in the democratic primaries: Rest my case, until you guys show diversity of thought like us republicans do.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 17, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, goose-stepping aside (I think there are members of both parties with an ignominious claim to this), I think one reason many dems, myself included, dislike Lieberman is because:

He lost the primary, and instead of losing graciously, he acted like he was betrayed by voters - when in actuality, his views simply did not reflect theirs. That's democracy.

Then, since he felt the seat really belonged to him, he ran as an independent - and expected that democratic senators would support him for old-times sake - rather than support the winner of the democratic primary. He whined a lot about that.

OK, he won the general fair and square, but then he virtually blackmaied the democtatic leadership into giving him the Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee - since they needed him to caucus w/ democrats.

His stance on the war might be based on his principles, but his actions re: the election don't seem equally pricipled to me.

Posted by: -pamela | December 17, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is set to get the backing of Iowa Rep. David Loebsack Monday, an endorsement that could give the Democratic presidential candidate a boost of momentum with less than three weeks until the state's caucuses.

Loebsack is slated to make the announcement in Des Moines later Monday.

The endorsement -- heavily courted by many of the presidential candidates -- gives Obama backing from two of the three Democratic Iowa congressmen. Rep. Bruce Braley announced earlier this month he was endorsing Obama, while Rep. Leonard Boswell said last week he is supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton."

I think this is far more significant than the Des Moines Register endorsement - politicians have groups of supporters they can mobilize to get people to the caucuses.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 17, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

claudia - Ah, those lockstep Republican's! Of course Huckabee proposed to curb guest worker visas and outsourcing and proposed to exit Iraq. So does Ron Paul, come to think of it. Some of those ock step Republican's propose to privatize Social Security (Guliani, Romney) whereas others propose to raise the income cap subject to FICA taxes and others still propose to raise payroll taxes. Some want to round up and deport all illegals, others want to grant some form of amnesty to families with children born in the U.S. Huckabee is so pro education her was endorsed by Education Associations (teachers unions) all across the country, many of whom did so in direct opposition to the national NEA. Oh, those so lock step Republican's! Many of those Republican;s advocate more liberal, more rational, more beneficial and progressive policies that the leading Democratic nitwit Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

ebauersox- Your posts are typical of the catch 22 of a lot of self described feminists. If people say they wont vote for Clinton, tey're somehow anti-women and suffer from some sort of psychological impairment. If they criticize radical feminism they are somehow a woman hater. The fact is, the people with the problem are you radical feminists. You post thinly veiled male bashing comments and justification of certain feminists demeaning men shows more than anything else that you blame men for some failure of your own, or that you were harmed by some male in the past. Hillary Clinton has inserted this sort of garbage into her campaign speeches, into her campaign, and has managed to cause many people to become convinced that she is the same sort of psychological mess and is entirely unsuited to be President or, even, a U.S. Senator. Your entire argument for her candidacy amounts to something like "We've never had a woman President and it's abut time". How intellectually bankrupt. She has no policies that I can determine. Her health care proposals amount to a $110 billion give-away to the private health care industry that does nothing to provide health care for most working people; especially younger workers forced to choose between health care and the rent. Her proposal to ensure the solvency of Social Security is simply a tax increase. Contrast this with Mr. Obama's plan to simply to raise the income cap on earnings that are subject to Social Security taxation. That would render Social Security solvent and is fairer. Ms. Clinton supports outsourcing. She went to India and touted her record of supporting this at a time when millions of jobs are disappearing as a direct result of this sort of insanity. She and her husband made heir personal fortune by investing in a firm that provides H1-B workers from China and India; that while nearly 30% of American engineers and computer programmers are out of work. She proposes to keep tax breaks for investors and businesses and the wealthiest 3%, to stay involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is, in fact, the same sort of train wreck that Bush-Cheney have been, just with the added burden of old guard feminist claptrap. She does not deserve the vote of people wanting change and I am confident that she will be soundly rejected. Every candidate running, from either party, would make a better leader for this country.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The Lieberman endorsement of McCain is interesting, b/c if the assumption that it helps McCain w/ Indies is correct, then in a convoluted way, I wonder if this actually helps Hillary?

I think that in NH, Indies have to choose between participating in the Reublican or Democratic primary. If support for McCain increases, and Indies vote in the Republican primary, this dilutes the potential support Obama, Edwards, Biden, etc. would get from independents. My guess is Hillary's support among Indies is limited - so their voting for McCain takes nothing away from her.

Posted by: -pamela | December 17, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

funny you should talk about goose-stepping, bhoomes, when every member of the R party votes in lockstep on every issue. funny things, that.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman could help McCain with the independants in NH but I doubt it because he's yesterday's politician. My guess is they will go heavily for Obama. I know a lot of dems do not like Lieberman because he's not a goose stepper like the rest of the non thinking knee jerk democrats. He's the intellectual's politician because he puts country ahead of party and actually thinks about the issues of the day without poll testing(Hillary) them 1st.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 17, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

'The LAT fronts the second of its two-part series about Mitt Romney's business dealings and reveals the Republican presidential candidate used offshore tax shelters in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to help investors avoid paying taxes. '

is anyone suprised? the wealthy deadbeats who run this country. the middle class pays their taxes and supports the defense establishment, the wealthy deadbeats who don't care about their country can't be bothered.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

From comments I've seen and heard, Lieberman is absolutely loathed by most Dems as a sellout and Cheney toady--worse than zell miller. He ran in CT during the primary as anti-war-- and then on the day he won flipped striaght back to being cheney's mouthpiece for war and more war. He cannot be trusted--and I thnk his endorsement only tarnishes McCain, whom I may not agree with but who still has some integrity, unlike Leiberman.

Hey CC, can you write about something beside Hillalry? I know you and the rest of the press want a catfight between her and Rudy, but we voters would like to make up our own minds.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

lyle, I do not actually know what moves NH indies - so that was a guess based on regionalism. I thought a NH indie would be more like a CT indie than not. That seems to be CC's operating assumption.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

lyle

Why do you think Lieberman's endorsement would hurt McCain with Republican primary voters? I would think it an asset. McCain is not going to get the votes of anti-war Democrats - the ones most vehement in their dislike of Lieberman. It will probably help with New Hampshire Republican primary voters.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 17, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

lyle, I think the LL endorsement was timed for NH Indies, and cannot hurt McC b/c his entire hope is NH.

Again, thanx for your web digging - I looked at google in a cursory manner and saw that there was a supervising D attorney during the Watergate investigation of the same name and became perturbed. Colin's cite to the WaPo review was very good, and I have put the episode behind me.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

JimD, I favor Biden over Dodd, too, but I had not read Dodd's position on Iraq as favoring precipitous withdrawal, a la Richardson.

Looking at his web page, I see his position stated more stridently than I have heard it in debate, but it still is not the Richardson call for total pull-out. He proposes most of the objectives you have eloquently backed -
force protection, training, and al quaeda ops. If he supported border integrity efforts, as well, I am guessing he would have lined up with your thinking.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

'Democrats succeeded in reversing cuts sought by President Bush to heating subsidies, local law enforcement and Amtrak'

No matter who the Democratic candidate is, I iwll vote from he/she, because they represent the interests of those of us who are not wealthy. Take heating subsidies for instance. The oil companies are making record profits and heating oil costs triple this year what it did last. Here in the Northeast we've had a record number of snowstorms in fall [4 already and it's not winter till saturday] and sudden, record cold temperatures. Many people, especially the old and sick and poor, may well freeze to death this winter without heating subsides. We are the wealthiest nation, yet we seem to care the least about our own people.

OH, btw, for the Exxon Weathernut Moonbats, just so you know, when the globe warms a few degrees, it causes airstreams and ocean currents to shift, resulting in extreme weather changes, which include record cold shifts and extreme storms. It would be nice if Fox and other Exxon sympathizers could stop lying and trying to confuse people with this canard.


Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

markinaustin: Have you seen the expected endorsement of Joe Lieberman for McCain today? IMHO, This will hurt McCain much more than it will help him in NH, and likely will diminish the DMR endorsement in Iowa as well. All candidates hope and try hard for these newspaper endorsements for they do have an impact.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

to mibrooks27 -

You write as if "feminism" is some kind of secret dirty vice -- like misogynism or alcoholism. Speaking as a person who has worked for a major news organization that deals in fake polls, I don't think Clinton's drop in most of those polls matters very much.

As for posts like yours, people won't happily support a candidate who pretends to be above the fray -- like some kind of spaced-out flower child -- but whose partisans engage in the sort of coarse abuse that you do. If you seriously believe that posts like yours are causing damage to Clinton -- instead of the reverse -- the kindest thing I can say is that you have perceptual problems.

I notice that you haven't supplied any picture of Susan B. Anthony wielding an axe. Instead, suppose you give us some examples of the male-bashing by Hillary Clinton that you seem obsessed with.

Nobody is "getting rid" of me and my ilk -- I hope that's clear to you. You write, "Anyone sane is frightened half to death." I guess that means *you* don't have to worry. Personally, I'd like it if vulgarians such as yourself were to keep a lower profile, or at least not self-identify as Democrats. You make all of us look bad.

Surely, you can call yourself something else. There are lots of nice names in the DMS that would fit you perfectly.


Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 17, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

zb95: Try getting your "FACTS" straight--Hillary DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. This has been a consistent cry from the "Hillary Haters" and PROVEN WRONG many times.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

More comments on ELy, IA's love for Perry:

"Just when you think you live in the dumbest state with the dumbest ELECTED people, out pops this letter from Craig Nelson of Iowa."

"...it'll just be another case of Rick Perry making George W. Bush look good."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

On a lighter note, Rick Perry, Gov. Goodhair of the 39% plurality victory, so impressed self-described conservative Craig Nelson of Ely, IA, that Nelson extolled Goodhair's virtues in a letter to the Austin American-Statesman yesterday. Today's comments are hilarious, e.g.:

"Seal off every interstate out of Iowa and don't let Perry leave that state. This is the best oppurtunity we've had to get rid of the 39% governor since the majority apparently doesn't rule in Texas, due to the lack of a runoff election."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

I see a lot of hysterical pro and anti Hillary posts this morning and zouk hasn't even arrived.

Let's face it, newspaper endorsements have very limited influence in this day and age.

I agree with Mark, that if the DMR wanted to endorse the candidate best prepared to lead they would have gone with Biden (my choice) or Dodd. Personally, I cannot support Dodd given his support of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

Posted by: jimd52 | December 17, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

'Fox is a legitimate news network' -- oh please, dave, it's too early in the morning for jokes. Fox is owned and funded by a hardright tycoon, and was founded and is still run by a repubican strategiest. It's whole purpose from the beginning was to act as a mouthpiece for radical rightwingers, and that's what it does, and all it does. To pretend otherwise is just laughable.

I feel sorry for all the pavlovian hillary hating. The vitriol, the violence, the fear and loathing of women. what a sad country this is. Rove has done a great job of dividing us beyond recognition.

Posted by: drindl | December 17, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

It seems like the way in which this selection was made is the same sort of closed door deals that lead us into war in Iraq...its the same mindset...which is percisely why we need a new way of thinking...this country can't afford to ignore Obama... http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

Posted by: nquotes | December 17, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

HRC got the endorsement because she worked hard,was persausive, and earned the endorsement.

everything else is sour grapes.

Posted by: newagent99 | December 17, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The DMR endorsement of Ms Clinton boggles the mind. There is no legitimate explanation for their endorsement of Hillary Clinton. She is clearly not the best candidate for Iowa, not even close.

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Each candidate makes a case for her/himself on the campaign web page. The external case depends on what the observer values and that should be stated honestly.

For example, I value foreign policy vision, dedication to transparency in government, plain speaking, experience, and an understanding of the Constitutional limits of power. Character, if I am given to know it, could trump all else. All candidates say they would share my values. But they do not all approach from the same directions that I do. For example:

Ron Paul's avid supporters love him for the list of propositions I raised, but I do not. I am more "inspired" by McCain, Biden, Dodd, and, perhaps, Obama than I am by HRC. This would not detract from a well reasoned DMR endorsement that conceded that her vision was most in line with that of editorial board.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 7:54 AM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin: It is a very recent picture from the campaign trail and indicates that Ms Clinton may not be up to the task. This is significant. Campaigning is very tough and if she is tired already I am afraid she won't be able to make it through to the homestretch.

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 7:41 AM | Report abuse

zb95, we all age. Maturity has its own advantages. When you posted the photo you went over the top, IMHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 7:34 AM | Report abuse

lyle and FemaleNick, HRC's regular supporters here, are both correct to point to her years of service. One can make a strong case for her. The problem is not that DMR endorsed her - it is that DMR argued that she was best prepared to LEAD. From its criteria, Biden [or Dodd] should have won the endorsement.

An endorsement that argued that she was well prepared to serve, that her priorities most closely fit the DMR's, and that she had surrounded herself with the best and the brightest, would have been internally consistent.

And the DMR endorsement has always been a boost in the past. It has been credited with helping Edwards to his surprise second place showing in 2004, for example.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2007 7:29 AM | Report abuse

What Chris fails to mention is that reports from field indicate Hillary is tired, worn-out, losing her edge, getting impatient, angry, bitter and simply p*ssed-off that America does not bow down before and annoit her Queen of the Democratic party. Meanwhile Obama is flying high just now hitting his stride. If she is tired already how is she going to handle a general election campaign? I think Hillary is simply too old for the kind of stuff now. Maybe 10 years ago, but now at her age its too late.

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Ms Clinton has done nothing but play dirty politics since her numbers began to slide. Her campaign has tried to bring down Obama with all sorts of wild baseless attacks such as: 1) he is corrupt and has a slush fund; 2) he is obsessed with being president which started in kindergarten; 3) he is too liberal and is hiding his true beliefs; 4) he is a closet radical Muslim intent on destroying America; 5) he is a drug addict and drug dealer. Yet, the DMR rewards this with an endorsement. Pathetic.

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 7:22 AM | Report abuse

The DMR article states "The choice, then, comes down to preparedness". So 8 years of having tea and crumpets with wives of foreign leaders has prepared her for being president? I think not. Did they forget that she voted for the Iraq war and was a Bush Iraq war cheerleader for years? She also voted to back Bush on the bogus Iran resolution. Does that sound like she is prepared for anything?? She only floats with the political winds. This election is about integrity, honesty, straightforwardness and hope, none of which Ms Clinton offers much of. The DMR is wrong, very wrong on this endorsement.

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 7:19 AM | Report abuse

How on earth could The DMR possibly select Hillary Clinton?!? She offers nothing but more of the same. She represents what many hate most about politics. Half of this country despises her and growing. Many in her own party will never vote for her. Obama has inspired the people of Iowa and all across America. He offers hope, integrity, vision, passion and possibly a chance to bring this country back together again. Hillary Clinton will only divide us further. Is that what the DMR wants? Sad.

Posted by: zb95 | December 17, 2007 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Never has being First Lady been seen as
a qualification to be President unless
you live in Argentina or Alabama.
Hillary's experience in Washington makes
her more partisan, more divisive and less
qualified to be President. Obama's
experience, judgement, leadership is
superior. Remember: he voted against the
war.

Posted by: GingerG1 | December 17, 2007 7:16 AM | Report abuse

So Traitor Joe has struck again! Joe-mentum, the "lifelong Democrat" is endorsing anti-choice, anti-tax, pro-war John McCain for president!! Tell me again why Connecticut Democrats should've nominated this jerk last year? We need him like we need another Zell Miller. I can't wait til we win more Senate seats so he can officially admit the Republican status he's been practicing for years.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | December 17, 2007 7:08 AM | Report abuse

And the inexplicable Hillary express is given yet more steam. Thanks Chris! Will tomorrow's blog be about Senator McCain and how he won the Register's endorsement, and the Globe's and Senator Lieberman's...

Don't hold our breath, right?

Posted by: StMmonk | December 17, 2007 6:08 AM | Report abuse

As a 58-yr-old who worked many frozen hours for Howard Dean, one of my frustrations was his followers... They didn't understand politics. So it was like having a rugby player think he could play football.

This is a HUGE endorsement.

When Obama thought he had it, it was a huge endorsement.
Now, when Obama doesn't have it, suddenly, the DMR board is a bunch of losers and, oh, they voted for Clinton because they're a bunch of women as well.

Congratulations to Senator Clinton.
She's going to fight every moment for this nomination, and anyone who thinks she is a quitter just is not facing reality.
Go, Hillary!

Posted by: freespeak | December 17, 2007 5:19 AM | Report abuse

Big whoopee, the never endorse the winning candidate. Edwards in 2004, Bradley in 2000.

People are tired of the Clintons and the Bushes.

Posted by: tcdif | December 17, 2007 4:54 AM | Report abuse

Your logic is flawed.

You write: "... since 1980 the Register has not endorsed a single winning candidate. Sure. But you'd rather have the Register endorsement than not."

WHY?

You don't have to be a "Clinton detractor" to point out a fact. Perhaps your argument should be "this newspaper is due to get one right!"
Let's hope not...Bush/Clinton fatigue
OBAMA 08!

Posted by: dognapper2 | December 17, 2007 4:45 AM | Report abuse

matt aherns: You forgot to mention Al Gore turned his back on Bubba, added a slap in the face to Bubba again by selecting then Dem Joe Lieberman as his VP, a harsh critic of Bubba, this went a long way in putting GW in The WH, and many feel simular results may happen if we fail to nominate Hillary as our choice for the 08 General.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 4:02 AM | Report abuse

matt-aherns: You forgot to mention Al Gore turned his back on Bubba and added a slap in the face by choosing his harshest critic, then Dem Joe Lieberman for his VP, who is supposed to endorse McCain later today. For all you "Hillary Haters" I "Listen for what you do say, not for only what you don't say, as well." Many Dems still think this was a major factor in putting GW in the WH, and if we fail to nominate Hillary, a simular thing could happen.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 3:50 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I can't believe we're wasting time discussing a newspaper endorsement from Des Moines. I tried to explain the logic of the American primary system to my Austrian wife. She's still trying to figure out why Iowa and New Hampshire matter in anything, let alone politics.

Let's move up the Guam primary to New Year's Day and really have some fun.

Posted by: jd5024 | December 17, 2007 2:49 AM | Report abuse

If there are independents who are still sitting on the fence at this late stage of the campaign, a newspaper endorsement is not going to help them set their mind. First of all very few people nowadays looks at the newspaper. They either get the news from TV or through the internet. There are ample negative news already out there about Hillary. Whatever the newspaper has to say will not be read that much. Just a few minutes ago I googled Clinton, and I read how the Clinton's are using tax shelters in Caymen islands to avoid paying taxes. Think about electing somebody who with her husband do not pay tax, and use loopholes to stash away money in Caymen islands. Now do you think they are doing it alone. They have friends like Norman Hsu everywhere who get a kickback for helping the Clintons with offshore financial dealings. No more Clinton in the white house.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | December 17, 2007 2:44 AM | Report abuse

The Des Moines Register must be run by intellectual pygmies.

I have assumed that much time was spent by the editor(s) to craft a world shattering editorial. Well, if I am right, it must be said that they missed the boat. They have produced unconvincing drivel which seems to be the lot of editorial writers. They have drawn unsupported conclusions which puts them among 12 year olds.

If Iowans want to play 'follow the Register' then they must be a bunch of lightweights.

If the Register had supported Senator Obama instead of Hilary would Iowans have lamely switched their minds off and queued up to vote as they are told to do so. I doubt it.

I have often thought that editorialists are lightweights who produce articles that are a waste of every one's time.

If Iowans are as dull-witted as the Register and Hilary are assuming then we should expect them to back another candidate equal to the calibre of George Bush.

Posted by: robertjames1 | December 17, 2007 2:00 AM | Report abuse

The Register displayed remarkable clarity in it's analysis of the three Democratic front-runners, and rightly in my opinion, endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I have long believed that Hillary is an extremely smart person. She specialized in child health issues and has made significant contributions to women's issues as well.She made key contributions to SCHIP. I do not see it in the profiles of the other candidates.She also has eight years experience in the White House and Washington D.C., and a few more in the Senate. She is a moderate politician and has a clear vision for the future. She represents the Democratic Party which seperates state from church, a big plus for me. The Republican platform does not support agnostic and atheist individuals who form a significant percentage of America's voting age population. The Republican Party is politically extremist and also believes that Christianity is the only true religion. By doing so, it excludes all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and others whose religions are equal. The Republican Party, despite it's claims is intolerant towards legal immigrants. This is evident from the Party's voting record during the recent debate on the immigration bill which failed. While a US citizen should not try to support illegal immigrants entering the country(every US citizen is bound to this by law), the lawmakers in Congress owe it to America to find a practical solution to immigration issues. The Republicans have made no effort and in fact blocked all solutions.

I followed Hillary's voting during the immigration bill and found it was responsible. I do not buy any of the objections of Hillary's critics,or see a better candidate. She has been tried and tested in public life. If America wants to vote for a woman President, this is a good time.No one knows when the next chance will come.But I don't care about it. The best Democratic candidate should be nominated.

Obama is also a candidate from a minority.I don't care about it(I am from a minority too). He has little experience. I am concerned about the character issue as well.Every naturalized US citizen must prove that his moral character is good. That means not being a habitual drunkard, not using banned substances etc.I do not think raising objections on this count is negative politics. A US President must be held to a higher standard than the common citizen. While Hillary is not the Pope, her record is entirely clean. It is impossible to predict how Obama will stand up to the demands of the White House, however good a speaker he may be. I don't see any significant achievement in his record.

All in all, the Register did not err in placing it's bet on Hillary Clinton, in my opinion

Posted by: sd71 | December 17, 2007 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Should Hillary lose, the Clinton campaign should not be able to get away with blowing off the defeat as "expected". No, she loses Iowa and she fails.

So Bill puts on the full court press and gets his way. A spouse campaigning for a candidate is OK but a former president husband throwing his weight around is not a good sign for the candidate. It shows her weakness. Are we to expect that if there is a national crisis that Bill will take over then too? Who will be president? Is Bill running for a third term?

And should we be putting at least some blame at the foot of Bill Clinton for the past 7 years of Bush? Any changes he made for the positive did not last and he couldn't even get his successor elected. His time as past. Take Magic Johnson and Barbara Streisand and go back to the 1990s; the rest of us want to move on.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | December 17, 2007 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Experience?
Compared to Joe Biden? That's hysterical!
Other than be first lady, what has she done? And what did she accomplish as first lady? Even Laura Bush accomplished more than Hillary did as first lady.

Thank goodness this endorsement doesn't mean a thing, and that Iowans are able to make up their own minds.

Posted by: jillcinta | December 17, 2007 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Hi Chris,

In all honesty, I don't have much faith in hillary past Iowa or N.H.... I still remember the Clinton White House disgrace. I want change, not more the same of slick willy.

I'm not endorsing anyone, and I'd vote whomever is chosen for Democratic Candidate. But I'd prefer a new face.

FWIW.

-Chuck

Posted by: hardline | December 17, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Are there any men who work in the Register's editorial department? Here's who they list:

Laura Hollingsworth
Carolyn Washburn
Carol Hunter
Linda Lantor Fandel
Rox Laird
Andie Dominick

and support staff
Susan Curry
Sandy Walter
Jennifer Miller

It's possible they aren't all women but I doubt you find other paper's editorial staffs that dominated by women. In a world where identity politics is constantly paying attention to what is called under representation, is it just political correctness not to take notice of the gender of those who picked the one women candidate?

Posted by: jskdn | December 17, 2007 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Lets address the "Experience" issue that is brought up so much. Since I am the oldest {From the start} and most often heard from Hillary supporter here on this blog. I am almost sure I have never stressed her "Experience" in the Govt. as an asset. The main thing I stress is what she has done over the course of her lifetime, including failures as well as successes. Children, Elderly, Education, Health Care, Civil Rights, and Poor Folks in general, among others, are things she has worked for all her life. No one has the "Experience" to be POTUS unless they have served in that office, and last time I checked none fit that criteria. I spent a little time checking for other newspaper and magazine endorsements and found very few for all the candidates combined. Remember, this will mostly take place about a month or so before the primary in each of the states. Look for a whole bunch next month.

Posted by: lylepink | December 17, 2007 12:03 AM | Report abuse

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many, many years, George W. Bush. The worst President in American History.Thank you Des Moines Register -- I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

Posted by: kevans6019 | December 16, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many, many years, George W. Bush. The worst President in American History.Thank you Des Moines Register -- I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

Posted by: kevans6019 | December 16, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many many years, George W. Bush. Thank you Des Moines register I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

Posted by: kevans6019 | December 16, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many many years, George W. Bush. Thank you Des Moines register I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

Posted by: kevans6019 | December 16, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

This "coveted" endorsement will have little to no impact for HRC--if anything it hurts her campaign because it *galvanizes* the other campaigns to work harder and garner those last undecided caucus goers. The integrity of the DMR has been going downhill for awhile--Iowans like me generally find the journalism lacking and laughable (kinda like this endorsement).

Please quit with this HRC 'experience' business. What she has is *invented* experience, opportunities she has had were either given to her by Billary or came about as a result of years of being first lady in Arkansas or the White House. I'm sure she's great at hosting dinners and helping designers at christmas!

Remember: without Bill, there wouldn't be a Hill!

Posted by: OceanDog | December 16, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

rahaha, nothing ruins the conversation like a little racism. Congratulations on seizing the opportunity to speak for the pre-evolved.
can you hear me back there in the 19th century?

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 16, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Enough HRC bashing. Time to even the score. Obama looks like a chimp, doesn't he?

Posted by: rahaha | December 16, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't aptitude never stressed as a necessary attribute in this campaign? I keep hearing about candidates' personality, but I want intellect first and foremost. Look at what we have now in Dubya. What more proof do we need that high intelligence is absolutely critical going forward? Someone help me out. PLEASE.

Posted by: Gharza | December 16, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The Register should be boycotted. The newspaper should be forced to run out of business, at least, in Iowa. They dared to endorse the most well known warmongers on both sides, when Iowa has expressed more concerns about Iraqi war's immediate end than almost all other states. The newspaper should be boycotted since now on. That is what they deserved.

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 16, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

HRC is from the Lieberman wing of the party. Will never vote for her! Smart choice is Biden!

Posted by: dab23 | December 16, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has my vote just to pizz off you morons that write such garbage. Why do you think she would "destroy" this country that's on the verge of being destroyed now?
She tried the first time to get universal healthcare for all Americans and got railroaded by the repubs and big pharms,you know,the ones everyone says that's in her pockets. She has the interests of this country ahead of the republican self-interests and you know it. She's trying to do what's right for her homeland,not pillage it like now. And as for Bill, enough of the intern jokes,it's old and not even funny anymore. I suppose you like when the repubs came in and stole the surplus he was able to achieve,you remember,back when the government was sending states money back. It's about having the right/competent people doing the job,not some chritian school flunky. To all of you obama lovers,what will you think when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are put in positions of power? Don't think it won't happen.

Posted by: jime2000 | December 16, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

colin and lyle - thanx.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 16, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

markinaustin: I used Yahoo search and found Jerry Zeifman to be a writer for Newsmax.com, A far right wing publication, and it only took about five minutes to see he is also against "The Speaker of The House of Representatives." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, among other Dems. Trying to sell some books, shame on you.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I don't have any personal info on Zeifman's letter, but a quick internet search seems to indicate the guy has made a second career out of being the self-proclaimed democrat that bashes other democrats. He seems to write a regular column for newsmax, for example, in which he's defended Coulter and slammed the clintons. Doesn't mean what he wrote here is wrong, but hurts his credibility in my book.

Also, this Post review of his book on Watergate -- in which he levels the same charges -- seems legitimately skeptical to me. Again, this is just what I found through some quick searches, so perhaps not helpful. At any rate, here's the WAPO link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm

Posted by: _Colin | December 16, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman to endorse McCain. Shouldn't McCain and not HRC be the news? He's got endorsements by The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and now Leiberman. Could it be a better week for him?

Posted by: dave | December 16, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

markinaustin: There appears to be a problem posting for I have tried several times over the past couple of days and have to sign in several times to get a comment posted. This letter/article you posted cannot be verified one way or the other, most of these people are now dead, and it appears this guy doesn't like Hillary going back many years, so my guess is, not credibale.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

To vwcat:

Newspapers receive angry letters and phone calls all the time. One of my children is a reporter who has been assigned to cover one of the Democratic candidates for the presidency. And she is constantly barraged with correspondence excoriating her for favoring this candidate, and equally as much for not favoring him enough.

When people accuse a paper of bias, what they are really saying is they are angry that the paper does not share their own bias.

I'm guessing that the folks at the Des Moines Register have been there and done that and don't give a hang about the letters and phone calls -- as they shouldn't.

Quite often, such a letter-writing, telephone calling (and email posting) response has been orchestrated by overzealous campaign workers. If they are going to do this kind of thing, they should advise their volunteers to have better manners. Some of the response I've been seeing to yesterday's endorsement appears to come from people who have taken leave of their senses.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 16, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

ebauersox - Believe me, the web is *FILLED* with posts just like mine. It is the main reason Clinton is dropping like a rock in the polls. People have known for quite some time about her feminism, but they are currently reading a lot of the snarkey garbage being posted by other feminists. The sort of bigoted, male bashing exhibited by her supporters is what we can expect from her Administration. Anyone sane is frightened half to death. Couple that with the various crooked business deals, the underhanded dealings she has always been partisan to, the illegal campaign donations, her anti-worker, pro-outsourcing ties, an her boat has left her standing on the dock. Thank God she has zero chance of being elected. After this election, the publicity ought to get enough people in NY aware of her that she is gone from the Senate, too. We have too many nut jobs in politics as it is now, beginning with Bush and the Republican's bailing out like rats from a sinking ship. We need to do thorough job of house keeping and dump the Democratic crooks, too. Now, if there was just some way we could rid the Democratic Party of wing nuts like you and your ilk.....

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, you may remember that months ago I posted that Thompson and HRC both began their careers deeply involved in the Watergate investigation, and I thought that was a positive for them. Then the WaPo wrote that Thompson may have leaked committee staff work to Nixon. That story diminished Thompson in my eyes.

I really want to know if this letter is credible. I have posted it at "Bench Conference" as well. There are ex - Justice folks around who would know.

I do not intend to quote it widely.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 16, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

to mibrooks27:

Although she was a member of the Daughters of Temperance, Susan B. Anthony abandoned that movement to concentrate on Women's Suffrage. Since you have asserted that the most famous pictures of Anthony show her destroying distilleries with a hatchet, suppose you provide a link to one of them. Actually, the person who is associated with using a hatchet to destroy saloons and distilleries was Carrie Nation.

As for the rest of your diatribe, people who call Hillary Clinton supporters "lesbians" and "wrinkled old hags" deserve to be trashed.

And I certainly hope that lots of undecided voters are reading your posts. Because I suspect that no thinking person would want to belong to the same subset as you, whether it calls itself "poor, mistreated men" or "Obama supporters."

I don't see anything resembling bigotry in Hillary Clinton's behavior. As I see it, what teeters at the edge of bigotry is when Mr. Obama screams "racism" any time his behavior is criticized or his personal history is questioned.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 16, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I bet the DMR editorial board is regretting their caving into the Clinton's arm twisting campaign today.
At their online site there are pages and pages of angry people writing in and complaining of the endorsement of clinton. Rather than work for HRC, this endorsement has set of a bomb with people really ticked off at the paper.
The editor was on Washington Journal this morning as got all calls condemning the endorsement of Clinton.
What the endorsement has done, rather than help Hillary, is show just how much Iowa dislikes her.
While the media may think this is wonderful and a boost, I think you'll find the opposite is true,
I wonder how many angry letters and phone calls they have gotten on top of it.

Posted by: vwcat | December 16, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

After the debacle of The Des Moines Register Presidential Debates, why should we be surprised by another debacle in the Register's endorsement of Hillary Clinton? Wake up, Editorial Board, or don't you know that this is 2007?

Posted by: j.f.keane | December 16, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

It means nothing if Bill Clinton continues to talk:

During an interview on PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," the former president said that those who accuse him of favoritism towards his wife "have got it all wrong, because, you know, Charlie, I've pretty much lived my entire life as if I wasn't married to her at all."

Being a president is a lot like being a thousand-dollar-a-night call girl, Charlie," he said. "Experience matters."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/clinton-says-being-marrie_

Posted by: dsmith2 | December 16, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

markinaustin: Although your question was addressed to the lawyers, I think I should express my opinion of how credible this person can be. IMHO, You, as a lawyer should know better. The is no way this can be proved or not proved, since many of these folks are now dead. This appears to be another hit job on Hillary and I didn't think you would stoop to such a low level.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I like the fact that Hillary worked hard to get this endorsement. Getting things done - in life and in Washington - requires being procative, presenting your case, and recruiting allies.

If the Dems go with Obama, they risk electing someone who has little experience in getting things done. It is easy to have rhetoric of "change" but you need political skills to close the deal (I mean beyond Hollywood and HARPO productions).

Posted by: Friend1 | December 16, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

ebauersox - Your knowledge of history is abominable! Susan B. Anthony was one of the chief proponents of Prohibition. She got her start by attacking distilleries. Of the photo's we have of her, the most famous are of her and her supporters chopping in casks of whiskey with an ax! The ax, in fact, became the trademark of the early women's voting rights movement.

And, for all of that, you still ignore the question of intolerable bigotry by Hilary and her fellow old guard feminists. Substitute blacks of Native Americans, or gays, or women for the constant trashing of men that pervades our society by these hags and the Post and NYT would be running daily editorials. It's sickening, it's bigotry of the firs order, and I cannot fathom anyone tolerating it in this day and age. What is troubling for people like me, however, is that these people d it all the time, take pride in it, and people like you go through all sorts of contortions to justify it, excuse it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The Register and all the spinners in the Clinton camp keep talking about her "experience". But the experience I remember from those nostalgic days of yesteryear was Hillary's crash and burn Health care disaster, which led directly to Newt Gingrich's 1994 Congressional victory and 12 years of GOP domination of the Congress. Her experience also includes the blank check she gave to George Bush to begin our disaster in Iraq. We don't need to reward or repeat that type of priven failure.

Posted by: dmooney | December 16, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

THE REAL REASON FOR THE ENDORSEMENTS!! The Des Moines Register is owned by Gannett Inc. who also owns USA Today and is also a partner with defense contractor General Electric. They also own insider publications of U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy & Marine Corps and Defense News and Military Times Market. These two candidates are the most pro-war candidates running and it only makes sense that these would be their endorsements. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY AND WAR!

Posted by: Rubiconski | December 16, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I see he failed to mention that HILLARY CLINTON WAS A CORPORATE LAWYER.

The Des Moines Register changed hands after last election, and is now owned bye THE SIXTH LARGEST MEDIA CONGLOMERATE IN THE UNITED STATES.

Of course the consolidation loving DMR was going to endorse Hillary Clinton this time, when she has no problem with media consolidation.

John Edwards does. He doesn't like media consolidation, so the DMR chose to call him "anti-corporate" and endorse the corporate lawyer (Hillary Clinton).

This is NOT A BLOW for Edwards.

The Des Moines Register called him different, but failed to point out that THE REGISTER ITSELF IS DIFFERENT.

It's now a part of the big-money media conglomerates.

Nothing surprised about this endorsement at all.

Posted by: framecop | December 16, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

LV, Colin, all DC area attorneys - have you read this before? Is the author credible?
-------------------------------------
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.

Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.

In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. This, though in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible to the public.

The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.

The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)

The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.

Jerry Zeifman

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 16, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Note to Hillary: The World does not need, or want your tough-girl act. Yes it worked for Lady Thatcher, but when you try it we just look away. If you're really feeling angry why not get some exercise? You'll feel (& think) alot better. [In that respect, I wouldn't mind a 3rd Bush term, or a President Mitt.] Like pro-sports, politics today is part entertainment. Maybe that's why the nation in it's wisdom passed on Gore-the-Bore. And a Schrill-Hill isn't a winner either. So wise-up! We could be off-a-cliff economically [multi-trillions of unfunded liabilities]and ecologically [melting ice-caps]. So, if/when the crash's and/or collapses come, the best you and Nurse Nancy might offer is some effective triage.

Posted by: 4to125characters | December 16, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

To mibrooks27: In fact, Susan B. Anthony made a point of opposing Prohibition, because she didn't want it to be a distraction from suffrage. For your information, Anthony died in 1906, and Prohibition wasn't enacted until 1922.

I hope you're not trying to say that Hillary and the people who will vote for her are in favor of prohibition, and that this is just an ignorant mistake by you.

And I also hope that when you describe Hillary's supporters as "womyn" (and "wrinkled old feminists") you are not using that word as a synonym for "lesbian" -- as many do -- because that would show you have serious problems about women and need to seek help.

With supporters like you, Obama doesn't need enemies.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody remember that the only important matters under Hillary's watch were disasters: Hillary Care and the appointment of the attorney general in Bill's administration, not to mention her vote to go to war in Iraq. Experience means nothing if you don't have the courage to do the right things, as Obama did when he voted against the War in Iraq. The Register's endorsement of HC does not impress.

Posted by: GingerG1 | December 16, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Gannett Corp = DM Register owner = HRC shill = HRC endorsement.

Believe me, no one in Des Moines is surprised at the endorsement--duh, of course they were going to give it to her. They've been pro-HRC for months and months. For some reason everyone on the nat'l level thinks the Register is some fabulous piece of journalism when in reality, us Iowans call it the Rag-ister for a reason. Go to the DMR and see the 500+ comments about this announcement and you'll see that 95% think it's the laughing stock of the season.

People will think "oh, the DMR endorsed Hillary--I don't trust the DMR so I'm going to run far away from the endorsement and find another candidate!"

Posted by: OceanDog | December 16, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

No Thanks Hillary.

because...

-nepotism does not count for experience (haven't we all witnessed a great testament to that for the past 7 years)

-piss poor judgement (triangulating the odds against the poll numbers)in advocating for the war in Iraq is a real good sign of things to come. America - please don't let anyone get away with what they've done to us in going to Iraq.

-I voted for Hillary for her first senate term when I lived in Upstate NY. 'Fool me once...' Never again.

-America is well over-due for a woman in the highest office. Put a worthy one up and I will vote for her in a heart beat.
Hillary is absolutely not that person.

Barack Obama for a better America.

It's time we Rise and Shine again America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | December 16, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I've never voted for a republican in my entire life, but if Hillary wins the nomination, i just hope the republicans nominate McCain or Huckabee, so i can vote for one of them instead.

I'll NEVER vote for Hillary, and if Hillary supporters had any brains, they'd pay attention to the polls of general election matchups- where Hillary does the worst against the republicans than ANY of the other democratic candidates.

And i don't want to hear any blaming or belly-aching from Hillary supporters, if she's nominated and then loses the general election, because you can't say you weren't warned. I'm one of the 50% of Americans who refuse to vote for Clinton no matter what. She's a war-mongering, deceptive, power-hungry, unqualified, negative, dirty, politician.

Posted by: julieds | December 16, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I can only think of how many supporters of others, rather than Hillary, would be reacting if the DMR had endorsed their favorite. Suffice it to say they would be pleased, as those of us supporting Hillary are. Their endorsement of McCain was a suprise, since he is one of the strongest supporters of GWs war in Iraq.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who blather on about Hillary-haters need to get a grip. Is it not possible to simply feel that she is not the best candidate for chief executive of this country, or that her experience claims appear to be without merit, without making it personal? I have no problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton as a person or as a former first lady. I just don't think she's the best candidate running.

I am upset by the celebrity-worshipping culture we have that made Clinton and Giuliani the frontrunners purely on the basis of their fame. Again, that is not personal.

To the Clinton supporters out there: Your vitriolic attacks on anyone who disagrees with you is not likely to win votes for your candidate.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | December 16, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The endorsement was incredibly lukewarm and unenthusiastic. The bottom line was that they support the uninspiring workhorse with a lot of baggage from the 1990s. Quite a contrast with the Boston Globe endorsement of Obama.

Posted by: jodie-plumert | December 16, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

It looks to me like Hillary got the endorsement the same way she has gotten everything else--BILL CLINTON worked really hard for it.

Hillary is a disgrace to feminists.

Posted by: julieds | December 16, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

claudialong... on the Republican side there were no women to choose. the only real choices were all white men.

Posted by: xcrunner771 | December 16, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

As with most news stories, the most informative and accurate part comes at the end: "since 1980 the Register has not endorsed a single winning candidate." So why would anyone care about an endorsement which has gone to the loser every time? If anything it seems like something of a jinx, not a blessing.

The DMR lost its credibility via the performance of its editor, who was just terrible. I'm surprised she had the audacity to show up for the Dems. She had all the worst traits of the "Weakest Link" woman without any of her smarts or charm.

Can't help but notice, Chris, that Obama's endorsement by Boston Globe did not make the front page of the WaPo, and it only got a grudging mention in your column. (How about putting on the front page Hillary's precinct captain abandoning her for Obama? Nah, no news there.) Even as good news for Obama continues to roll in I am sure this headline will stay on the front page, right where Hillary wants it.

The genuineness of this endorsement is further underminded by your detailed account of both Clintons strongarming the paper (kinda like they strongarmed GQ into not printing anything bad). What you see as "working hard" for it, the rest of us see as desperate manipulation of a process whose worth depends on its integrity and independence. The result: the Register's endorsement is about as indicative of support for Hillary as are the signatures she paid for to get her on the Virginia primary ballot.

Fortunately, unlike the straw polls, she can't pay people to vote for her. When the votes finally get counted in these early states folks like you will be mining the past, wondering why all those supporters didn't show up.

I can't wait to see how you spin losses in Iowa, NH, and S. Carolina into further evidence of Hillary's "strength" and "support". To quote Mrs. Clinton, that will be the "fun" part.

Posted by: xcrunner771 | December 16, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

claudia, that's a rather snarkey remark! Of course I believe in women's voting. I also believe in choice, gay domestic partnerships, universal healthcare and equality of all citizens. I simply loathe the old guard Bolsheviks of the radical feminist movement. They are NOT about equality. Whenever they have had a chance, and they have had many of late, we get television shows and commercials that depict men as incompetent buffoons, swinish troglodytes, lousy fathers and husbands, and in general blame them for the ills of the world. I find that message a form of intolerable bigotry that renders that movement and all members beyond the pale. I figure Hilary and her minions would be the worst disaster to ever befall this country and will do whatever I can to ensure they do not have a chance to befoul our nest.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's endorsement was cajoled, and it was REALLY a joint endorsement for her and Obama. Read the newspaper's fine print.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/clinton-and-mccain-garner-des-moines.html#links

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | December 16, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing HRC. But I think that you might be overstating what HRC is. She is more an opportunist and a realist than a feminist or any other ist. Susan B was ideologically grounded and I think don't think HRC is that.

Posted by: dave | December 16, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Open1 | December 16, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think the importance of the Boston Globe endorsement of Obama is underplayed. The Globe is probably right below the NYT and WaPo in terms of national attention and credibility, and may have a significant impact in NH (at least near the Mass. border). That such a major paper would endorse Obama is a major step forward for him against the Clintons' fallacious "too inexperienced" mantra.

The DMR endorsement is definitely a nice pickup for Clinton, though. Are many fence sitters really going to be pushed off by a paper endorsement here or in NH or SC? I doubt it. But it provides a nice positive narrative for her to focus on going into the last full week of campaigning before the holidays. She would be wise to take advantage of it rather than continuing her negative attack strategy.

Posted by: Nissl | December 16, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The Boston Globe got it right. Barack Obama is certainly presidential material with the bonus of not being named Bush or Clinton. He is qualified in his own right.

I believe we need a change. I believe we need a break from the past. I believe that change must happen with a fresh, intelligent person who runs this race differently. I believe that person is Barack Obama!

Posted by: bwaatrnwg | December 16, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I favor change, so I will vote for Obama.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | December 16, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Claudialong,
If AirAmerica garnered 1/10th of the ratings Fox did, you would make sense. As it is, the Dems are the ones that need to "grow up". You may think that AA and Fox are comparable but in reality, one is an established, highly rated, legitimate news network and the other is Air America. You may not like it, but it is what it is. Failure to appear on Fox makes the Dem candidates look petty, small and partisan and accomplishes nothing. Obama says the following on his website - "Senator Obama has been able to develop innovative approaches to challenge the status quo and get results. Americans are tired of divisive ideological politics, which is why Senator Obama has reached out to Republicans to find areas of common ground." Put up or shut up.

Posted by: dave | December 16, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton and her husband met with the board over cocktails to make the case. A series of surrogates -- including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, EMILY's List chief Ellen Malcolm and Robert Kennedy Jr. -- barraged the board with calls in support of Clinton. High-level Clinton staffers -- including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, pollster Mark Penn, policy director Neera Tanden and senior adviser Ann Lewis -- met individually with members of the board to make the case."


Sounds like they were more aggressive than a debt collector with an automatic dialer. But hey, enough cocktails, enough arm twisting, I might endorse Hillary too. But I'll vote for Obama or Edwards.

Posted by: AgathaX | December 16, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

(Obama supporter)
Obama gets the Boston Globe, New England's biggest newspaper. HRC gets the Des Moines Register, Iowa's major paper. It would seem that this comment would be about their different choices. Instead, it's pro-Clinton pablum, with typical media fetishizing of tactics and strategy and the inside game. Certainly, Mr. Cilizza does not understand the point that it is Sen. Clinton's "experience" that makes her objectionable to many Democrats and many more independents and Republicans. Let's talk about her substantive experience--well, perhaps we could if she would release her papers. Again, the media gives Clinton far more credit than she deserves.

Posted by: wesfromGA | December 16, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Senator Clinton and her supporters on the Des Moines Register endorsement.

And congratulations to Senator Edwards. While the Register editorial staff may have endorsed Clinton the undecided voters watching the recent Des Moines Register debate clearly did not. Both the CNN and Fox focus group of undecided voters were overwhelmingly in favor of Edwards.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | December 16, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

so the editorial board on the Register is all women....so what!! if it were all men....would there be such an outcry? of course not. the girl (my girl) worked her butt off for this endorsement just like I expect her to work hard for everything else she earns leading up to this election. those that ridicule 'wrinkled 60 year-old women' who support hillary are either young and uninformed or, old and still uninformed...or, worse yet....bigots. there are other ways of referring to a candidate's constituency that you don't agree with than with disrespect.

Posted by: ogdeeds | December 16, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It is well known that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.

Posted by: tucanofulano | December 16, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse


Well Dave, I think you're right... I am not willing to take any candidate seriously unless they go on Air America.

You know Dave? If we hadn't talked to the leaders of Russia while they had thousands of atomic weapons trained on our country, most of us would be dead by now. Grow up. Adults negogiate. Bush has people talking to Iran, Syria, and wrote a personal nice letter to Kim Il Jong. Even he has finally figured it out.

MikeB -- does what you said mean you don't think women should be allowed to vote? that's what Susan B. Anthony did for us.

I hace to hand it to Huckabee for speaking the truth about Bush:

'During an appearance on Meet the Press today, Mitt Romney took another swipe at his chief primary opponent, Mike Huckabee, calling on him to apologize to President Bush for describing the current U.S. foreign policy as "arrogant bunker mentality."

Nd Mitt, of course, bush's b*ttlicker in chief, defends his master like a servile dog.

CC--WHY NO MENTION OF HOW MCCAIN GOT THE NOD FROM THE REGISTER? WHAT DID HE DO?

Posted by: drindl | December 16, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hmm.

Hillary the Wicked Cannibal, who eats the children of "God-fearing" conservatives for breakfast--RAW.

Bill the Philanderer, who spends all his waking hours plotting a return to the White House so he can get a new coterie of young female interns.

The Des Moines Register, which can't POSSIBLY be objective, since it (like most other major news organizations) is owned by "out-of-staters", AND because its editorial board is dominated by lesbian feminist separatists (and aren't ALL women in positions of power and responsibility lesbian feminist separatists?).

Cheerleaders for other candidates, making like they're rooting for an average high school ball team, thinking that cat-calls at their opponents and JUST BEING LOUD will make a good team stumble so their own team can win the game.

The average voter got really tired of nasty campaigning and personal attacks after enduring the 2004 and 2006 elections, folks. I don't give a rat's pattooty about what YOU think about a candidate you don't support...I want to know what the reasons are for why you SUPPORT who you do. Put it on the table for comparisons, and let thoughtful people make up their own minds based upon what the candidates' capabilities are, what plans they propose for the nation and their ability to bring those plans to fruition. If you have nothing to say that persuades me to vote FOR someone, and LOTS to say about why I SHOULDN'T vote for someone else, I will ignore you--for good reason--and see you for who you are: someone who would rather destroy than build, someone who is so consumed with negativity that they can't see that the nation can't tolerate more of their evil and selfishness.

Hillary has demonstrated that she learns from mistakes, and that she can work well with Democrats AND Republicans to serve the needs of men, women, and children of all political stripes, urban, rural, and suburban, in the interests of the nation as a whole. Bill is not running for election, and his charitable work demonstrates that even those with flaws can do much good, in contrast to those who have had equal flaws and do NOTHING which is not self-serving in their own retirements (or incarcerations). The misogyny and homophobia expressed in so many comments speaks for itself, regarding the blackness in the hearts of those who express it. And cheerleading is fine, as long as you can point to your candidate's skills and translation of his thoughts into something I can look at to say "OK, NOW I see...that's a plan of action!".

People want pragmatic PROBLEM-SOLVING now, not vacuous chest-thumping nor adults behaving like playground bullies who only try to intimidate the others into giving him their lunch money. So, PUT UP or SHUT UP: if you have accusations, back it up with proof instead of hearsay or your own feeble opinions; if you have issues with a candidate's positions, give us chapter and verse for why someone else would be BETTER. If all you can do is anonymous spewing of verbal vomit, do us all a big favor and flush yourself down the nearest toilet--at least that way the rest of us can have a reasoned debate about what the various candidates bring to the campaign, and you will be with your own kind--floating down the sewer where you belong.

Posted by: winngerald | December 16, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

It's not a problem for the anti-Hillary poison pen brigade that the major media outlets who have been skewing their coverage toward Obama every since his callow attack on Clinton in Philadelphia are dominated by a network of good old boys. But let an enlightened, respected newspaper support Hillary Clinton, and darn, it has to be because their leadership is primarily female. What clever thinking.

Posted by: ichief | December 16, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like to DMR endorsement was bought and paid for just like everything else in the Clinton campaign. They muscle their way in and give the "you're either with us or against us speech", ala George W. Bush. People in Iowa are not going to buy this crap just like the rest of the country is finally waking up to what the Clintons are all about. They will say and do anything to win and this just proves it.

Posted by: GraceMN | December 16, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

bswamia: Welcome. I usually am one of the few Hillary supporters on this blog, so expect the "Hillary Haters" to come after you, but since I have said it here in the comments, they won't because they disagree with everything I say. Psy 101. This just might be the "Minor miracle" needed for Hillary to actually win the Iowa caucus.

Posted by: lylepink | December 16, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has plenty of experience.

He experienced being raised by a single mother and a happily married family man.
He experienced going to private and public school. He experienced going to a Muslim and then a Christian School. He experienced excelling Harvard and becoming head of the Harvard Law Review. Unlike Hillary he experienced passing the bar the first time. He experienced being a Constitutional law professor. He experience serving in both the state and U.S. Senate. He is leading in the polls by a 2-1 margin in Illinois.

Experience is important. But even more important is wisdom and judgment. The Bush Adminstration is full of experience but it lacks wisdom.

Endorsement from a man that knew a few presidents over his 86 year lifetime.
actor James Whitmore. It's quite compelling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpAyB1bGDrc



Posted by: uniteusnow | December 16, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"Des Moines Mayor endorsed Barack Obama
Dec 2".

Add this to no post on the Boston Globe endorsement. Pro-Hillary posts are far more likely to get published by Chris.

Another truth from this blog (and most others) is that most people do not like or trust HRC. It wil be a shame if the media holds their noses and pushes for her to win. The country deserves better.

Posted by: dyork | December 16, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporter here, but I thought your post offered valid analysis. Everyone did want it (I certainly wanted Obama to get it and thought for a moment that he just might after the Globe) and it's disappointing not to have it. I'm sure it will sway a few undecideds and solidify those leaning Hillary's way.

However, it's far from over in Iowa because of it, and I'm happy to hear they have not chosen the winning candidate since 1980 (is that really true? Wow, if so). I canvassed for Obama yesterday and was extremely impressed with the level of organization and the amount of clear information they had on the target voters. I can't compare it with Hillary and Edwards, but I can compare it with previous election cycles, and it's the best I've seen yet. I'm hoping it will help put them over the top.

Posted by: cmss1 | December 16, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The contrast between the depth and tone of the Boston Globe's endorsement of Obama and of DMR's endorsement of Clinton is striking.

As one commenter at Politico observed: "The Globe endorsement is the most beautifully written and compelling case for Obama since Andrew Sullivan's 'Why Obama Matters' piece. Really inspiring stuff."

The DMR endorsement is comparatively soft and obviously conflicted -- look at how much time they spend talking about Obama.

Posted by: johnlumea | December 16, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow!! What about all the vitriol on this page. Where were all these people crying out that the DMR was too liberal, too feminist, too establishment, too lightweight BEFORE the announcement. I wonder if you would be dismissing the endorsement so vehenetly is your candiate had won it. I think not.

Seems to me that what this shows is an awful lot of sour grapes. I note that most of it came from the ABC brigade. Why not show some graciousness - or is that asking too much of you and your candidates even though you expect it of HRC?

Posted by: anthonyrimell | December 16, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

dave, the last time this country had a feminist in the mold of Hillary Clinton it was Susan B. Anthony. Now, Ms. Anthony and her mob of fellow suffragist are best remembered for Prohibition. Clinton and the old guard Bolshevik's of the feminist movement and the soap opera moms have been blaming men for all of he worlds problems. The last time around, the figured that it was alcohol that made men so hard to deal with. This time around we hear them caterwauling abut professional sports, mainly football, guns, hunting and fishing. I don't want to be living here if we have round two of these hysterical shriveled up old drones running things.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has already proved divisive w/in the dem. party. I've voted dem. for 30 years but I will vote repub. or ind. if Hillary is the nominee

Posted by: fatboysez | December 16, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if the Washington Post reported this.

Des Moines Mayor endorsed Barack Obama
Dec 2,

Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie endorsed Senator Obama for president today. Mayor Cownie was re-elected in 2007 with 80% of the vote.

Mayor Cownie has emerged as a national leader on environmental issues and Barack said he looks forward to working side-by-side with him in the months and years to come.

Here's some of what Mayor Cownie had to say this morning:

The real promise of Senator Obama's presidency isn't just the plans he'll bring with him into the White House, it's the visionary leadership he'll demonstrate once he gets there. Barack Obama will put an end to the bitter partisanship that's stopped us from making progress on the urgent challenge of global warming. He'll tell the American people what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear. As President, he'll restore America's standing in the world and lead a global effort to meet this challenge once and for all.After the mayor's endorsement, Barack took some time to outline his comprehensive plan to combat global warming and achieve energy security. He said he will:

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts.
Invest $150 billion over the next ten years to develop and deploy climate friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs.
Dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our economy by 50 percent by 2030.
Reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030.
Make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CRRB

Posted by: uniteusnow | December 16, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris, this was a really unbalanced post and quite unlike you. Is someone breathing down your neck?

Posted by: Martin4 | December 16, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I think she got the endorsement because she has had the courage to go on Fox and be interviewed. Quite honestly, if a candidate is not willing to debate or be interviewed on Fox, I am not willing to take them seriously. It's not that I think Fox is the be all end all of news or that any of the candidates would get what they would consider a fair shake, but if you can't or won't take on the dreded Fox questions, then it says something about your judgement, who you answer to and how you will conduct yourself on the red/blue divide. It's laugh out loud funny that Obama would talk to the leaders of Iran, Syria, Hamas, North Korea, etc but won't talk to Chris Matthews. I believe that only Clinton and Biden have been willing to show up on Fox since they became candidates. Despite the well-earned reputation of divisivness, maybe Clinton would be the best candidate to bridge the Red/Blue divide out of the Dems.

Posted by: dave | December 16, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It's scary that a lightweight like Ms. Washburn has any influence. If she had been interested in doing a public service she would have brought in experts to help her, and then she would have devoted both of their debates to immigration matters, the area where almost all the candidates are weakest.

Under questioning by experts, neither Hillary nor Obama nor any of the other Dems would come out too well.

Of course, that's what the DMR would have done if they weren't basically just lightweight hacks.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | December 16, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Im not surprised at the number of ancient feminist has beens posing here for Hillary. I seems this crowd is angry at just about everything and men to blame. Last week on one of these wrinkled old cows posted a rant about men not having to go through menopause while women did. I suppose they expect Hillary to put that to rights to. This election for this shill collection of hysterical nut jobs is all about "getting even". I has zilch to do with health care, Iraq, he economy, or much of anything else; it's just about the *#*&%_@ abortions and somehow making men pay for their failures. BAC - anybody but Clinton: Edwards, Biden, Obama, but if you need to, hold your nose and vote for McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Guliani, even Romney. It's o out this crowd out sill feminists out to pasture.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clintons, Clintons.

No thanks.

The endorsement of Des Moines Register editorial board is laughable.

If they really go for "experienced," they should have choose Biden, Dodd or Richardson.

What's Hillary's remarkable "experience":

- voting for Iraq war--the gigantic foreign policy failure. in addition to that her senate record is thin and timid

- her only official responsibility in her husband's administration is the failure of health insurance reform

- she did travel extensively as a first lady, which actually caused a great deal complaint from Republican party, thinking she used too much tax payers' money for "personal" travel

- her campaign tactic is the most scarry part--planting questions, spreading rumors, it reminded me of Bush's tactic

- enlisting all the heavyweights to advocate for her while we voters prefer a candidate who can stands on his/her own shoes to prove him/herself. This is another evidence of Washington Establishment wants to prolong their way. If Hillary is so great, why not makes case for herself instead of outside advocacy.

It is a nightmare to even entertain the possibility of another Clinton administration.

By the way, this laughable endorsement did have an unintended consequence--it fires me to support my candidate intensively.

Another 4 years of Clinton is a nightmare after 8 years of Bush nightmare.

Posted by: wenmay2002 | December 16, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Given that Obama has really surged ahead in Iowa at this point (the latest poll has him 9 points ahead: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/all-eyes-on-iowa-2-new-polls-parking.html ), Clinton has a lot of work to do and needs to milk this endorsement.

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 16, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama disapointed street democrats when he backed Bush last year. He has great sound bites but little substance so far. He seems a bit like Edwards light. If he had real backbone he'd be sounding more like Kucinich who for a mere Congrssman has consistantly held the Bush Admistration to the fire. Obama has done nothing similar. Seems too cautious considering the state of the country. The Register probably got it perfect with their endorsement.

Posted by: hhkeller | December 16, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The people who are offended because Hillary Clinton actively campaigned for the Des Moines Register endorsement are losing sight of the fact that that's exactly the sort of thing a president needs to do in order to accomplish his or her goals.

Sorry, but there's no such thing -- in politics (as in journalism) -- as being "too aggressive" in pursuit of an important goal. Courting this endorsement as avidly as she did simply shows that Clinton is a candidate who knows how to get things done. And that -- as Martha Stewart might say -- is a Good Thing.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 16, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Yawn! Yes, as in 'whatever.'

I've said it before, but obviously it bears repeating: Although I have respect for the residents of Iowa, frankly I could care less about what they think about electing a president.

In other words, 'Wake me up when Super Tuesday hits.'

As for having pancakes in Iowa, or having coffee at a diner in New Hampshire, again: Yawn.

Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | December 16, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

For those who hoped Huckabee wasn't a demagogue, and that had some degree of foreign policy credilbility--unforntately, not.

'Here's what Huckabee said in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview:
"I'm as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well."

also check out the story about how when he was Governor of Arkansas, he was paid by RJ Reynolds to travel around to church groups and campaign against Hillary Clinton's health plan. He's not what he appears to be...

Posted by: drindl | December 16, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

'ow that Bill has seized the reigns, assuming he is returned to the white house, will he once again have interns on his executive staff?'

Good point. I'm sure Rudy Guiliani would have a fabulous time with the interns, not to mention the pages. I wonder if he'll still have on his team the priest who was removed from his priestly duties for pedophilia?

Posted by: drindl | December 16, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

IMO, the register was biased based on the performance of the moderator during the Republican debate. Hope the state has a better newspaper.

Posted by: dwightcollinsduarte | December 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, another 'liberal media outlet' LOL -- that just happens to have THIS on it's front page, main article--

'A lifelong leader, Rudolph Giuliani '

so if the Register board were all white men, and they picked a white man to endorse, would that indicate bias too?

Posted by: drindl | December 16, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It not a surprise, The Register editorial board is part of the democratic establishment. Don't want to sound like a spinner but I believe this actually benifits Obama. It says if you want more of the same, vote for Hillary,if you want real change, caucus for Obama. If this is a CHANGE election, then it is going to be Obama.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 16, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the best candidate the Reps pray for. I'm ready to bet my moribond dollar.

Otherwise, The Register and its board:

Full of sound and fury, and meaning nothing.

Posted by: boubker3 | December 16, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

irishorse, I hope you are right, but comments in forums aren't necessarily representative samples.

Posted by: RealChoices | December 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

TAKE IT FROM IOWAN. THE DES MOINES REGISTER IS ONE GOOD NEWSPAPER WITHOUT FLAWS AND LIES, AND THEY ARE VERRY CREDIBLE, BUT IN PICKING HILLARY THEY WERE SIMPLY WRONG. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IN THEIR HEADS THEY FIND HILLARY MUCH BETTER THAN ALL OTHER CANDIDATES. THEY ARE JUST WRONG, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL FOR OBAMA AT ALL. IOWANS DON'T EVEN LIKE HER AT ALL.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | December 16, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

What good is Hillary's "experience" when she endorsed the worst decision in U.S. history? Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to start an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Iraq. Why? Probably because her pollster told her she should do it. That is the kind of "experience" we don't need.

Go with the candidate who was right from the start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Obama in '08!

Posted by: RealChoices | December 16, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ensure365 | December 16, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I seriously doubt the value or "gold standard" of the Des Moines Register's endorsement. Go to their website and read the readers' comments on the Clinton endorsement. Readers are almost unanimous in their derision.

Posted by: irishorse | December 16, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The editorial main 3 deciders were womyn. The chief editorial writer managed the debates and seemed to have a Dem leaning approach. I lived on the Iowa border in 1987-88 in Bethany, Mo so saw that Iowa people are not easily fooled by out of state owned newspapers. Being in farming country makes Iowa people very astute as their lives and livelihood depend on how well they decide daily on what to do for their farming business.

Posted by: mascmen7 | December 16, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Simply great news fro Hillary! Clinton haters supporters can sping this anyway they want! The fact is they all would be boasting if their candidate had won the DMR endorsement!

HIllary is our 44th President!

Go Hillary!

Posted by: bswamina | December 16, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the Register sees the difference between wishing and working.
Ms Clinton has worked tirelessly and under the Rovina Republican manure slingfest.
While Obama has enjoed a light breeze and hardly has been tested nor has achieved a whole lot as yet.

When Obama could have confronted Bush war poilitics he didn't. Clinton also failed the Bush confrontation test but for some reason I understand her motivations better.

Richardson and Dodd are good men but the tome is right for a Women President.

I only hope Clinton becomes independent of the Israeli Lobby because it is that lobby that has gotten us into a 2 trillion dollar war and keeps the Palestian Isssue unresolved.

Posted by: hhkeller | December 16, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Having seen the nitwit editor of the Register tyr to screw up the Republican debate, it's no surprise that they endorsed the First Enabler.
Their case for her readiness to be presidential is about as compelling as a used car commercial.
Face it, without the Predator at her side she would be about as interesting and capable as a white Al Sharpton.

Posted by: LarryG62 | December 16, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Now that Bill has seized the reigns, assuming he is returned to the white house, will he once again have interns on his executive staff?

Posted by: rahaha | December 16, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

From the NYT on the topic...

"The DMR endorsement of HRC is no big surprise to us here in Iowa-they've been a shill for her for months because of course, they're a Gannett newspaper!

..."But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence..."

HRC inspires us with confidence? Puh-leeze. The DMR should release their records about how many times they were hounded by Bill, Wes Clark, Madeline Albright, etc. to push for the endorsement.

Just because HRC got this endorsement doesn't mean it will translate into caucus goers. Rather, it will likely hurt her campaign because the reputation of the DMR is in the tank! People will probably say "heck, the DMR endorsed HRC so I better find another candidate!" Believe me, go to the DMR articles and you'll see 300+ posts that basically laugh at the endorsement. Come Monday, the DMR phones will be ringing off the hook with "I'm calling to cancel my subscription!"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/iowa-forecast-everythings-a-ok/

Posted by: Big_Blue | December 16, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

dbl06 Your mistake is in confusing the party insiders, the wrinkled old feminists from the 60's and the Wall Street yuppies with liberals. They are NOT liberals, they care about making money and their careers and could care less about working men and women, children, racial issues. For that crowd it's all about abortion, getting ahead, getting even. It would be a complete disaster for this country to permit that crowd of nut jobs o take control of the reigns of power.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Ask not if the pantsuits are made of asbestos. Ask Rather if hers are asbestos boxers or asbestos briefs? And ask if one can get mesothelioma for munching through them.

Posted by: rahaha | December 16, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The Des Moines Register did not endorse the winner of the 2004 Iowa Democratic Caucusus. Read the reader comments at the DMR below their endorsement of HRC. A lot of people in Iowa are disappointed with the DMR.

There was a video on TV news last night that showed Susan Klopfer, a former Clinton precinct captain in Iowa, taking down the Hillary sign in her yard and replacing it with an Obama sign. It's on YouTube and Obama's site.

Posted by: jim283 | December 16, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

So another liberal media outlet is wrong. The left makes a career out of picking democratic canidates who can't win general elections. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, et.al.. Let's hope for the nation and the World that Iowans pick the genuinely most qualified and most unifying candidate, JOE BIDEN.

Posted by: dbl06 | December 16, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

So... I'm confused. You're saying Iowans are too shy and shallow to vote for someone unless a *newspaper* tells them it's okay?

I assume this article is tongue-in-cheek?

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | December 16, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I hope that the Register endorsement does impact the Independents on the fence. It won't do anything for the far left or right who look for someone who will support their personal values rather than what is right for the country as a whole. Let us hope that the country that erred so badly in 2000 and 2004 will this time look at the needs of the country in a dangerous world. That would be a vote for Hillary, not any of the others on either side.

Posted by: vienna12 | December 16, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but courting folks over cocktails, and sending in a barrage of high profile people in an aggressive campaign to win a newspaper endorsement seems pathetic to me. And I'm a Democrat from New York before someone labels me as a hating Hillary conservative. That newspaper board sounds like they got wooed not wowed. Unfortunately, in this political climate it's going to take a candidate to wow them in order to get a seat behind the desk at the Oval Office. And unfortunately, Hillary Clinton's star power isn't going to get there and neither will her politics.

Posted by: cmanblack1 | December 16, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

How many women has Bill boffed while in Iowa stumping for his wife?

Posted by: fatboysez | December 16, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza has zero credibility regarding the Dem. primaries in Iowa or nationwide. I say this based on his nonsensical comment that Hillary had a superb performance in the Iowa Dem. debate held last week. Even Hillary's campaign didn't use such glowing praise. Cillizza's a flash-in-the-pan using his fifteen minutes and his imagined influence to tilt voters towards Hillary. To do this, is and should be a mortal sin for reporters. But since Cillizza isn't a reporter I guess it's just an attempt on his part to secure a job w/in the Hillary administration. Good luck on that Chris. I think you're better suited for a devious job within an administration that says message control is their key to success than you are for a reporters job.

Posted by: fatboysez | December 16, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

This is huge for Hillary. All of the candidates worked for this and she was the one to earn it based on her strength, experience, hard work and intelligence.

Can't wait to see the campaign commercial touting this.

In the meantime, the Hillary haters are left with nothing but their sour grapes to suck on!

Posted by: craighennin | December 16, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Clinton won the recommendation because the board was packed with the very sort of womyn that have driven her candidacy since day 1. When 6 out of the 8 people voting for the endorsement were self identified older feminists. It's joke to even suugest she worked for this, she is of the insiders for this crew. Clinton has been a creation of "womyn" in the media and it's high time CC and pthe people started pointing it out. ABC! Biden, Edwards, Obama, *anybody* but Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 16, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

It looks to me like Hillary got the endorsement the same way she has gotten everything else--she worked really hard for it.

Posted by: Lamentations | December 16, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you failed to mention the gender makeup of the Register's editorial board. I believe I read somewhere it is in the range of 6 or 7 females to one male. Do you think this may have influenced their endorsement? Do you think it would be responsible journalism to mention that fact in your piece? Do you think that if the board consisted of 7 blacks and 1 white person and they endorsed Obama, that would make it into the article? I think so. Get real...this endorsement is more about wanting to see the first woman president than who is most ready and able to assume the job.

Posted by: trmasonic | December 16, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It was clear that the Register was going to endorse Hillary since she was the most experienced defender of Black Panther cop Killers .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | December 16, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The old Chris is back!!! Not one but two items about HRC's endorsment win while making a passing remark, late in the post, to OHB's Boston Globe endorsement. I repeat an earlier cut and paste from the first post, from the NYT article, about how HRC couldn't close the deal on her own.

"Not long afterward, Mrs. Clinton scheduled a Sunday breakfast meeting with the editorial board at her West Des Moines hotel.

It did not go so well.

"I think they thought it was going to be a more chatty meet-and-greet kind of event than it was," Ms. Washburn said. "Her staff called and said: 'That was a pretty intense conversation. Maybe you didn't get to see her lighter side. Would you like to do that again?' "

The next time, Mr. Clinton was on hand with his wife..."

Posted by: dyork | December 16, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company