A Few Points About the Register Endorsement

Full Clinton editorial here.

Full McCain editorial here.

(1) It's a major boost for Clinton. And for her campaign staff, who've need some good news. Many Democrats in Iowa unquestionably consult the Register's editorial voice before deciding whom to vote for.

(2) The Register endorses Clinton's theme: inspiration is nice, but in order to get things done, you need experience.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)
Advertisement

Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.

(3) The Obama campaign really wanted this endorsement, although they were not terribly sanguine about their chances to get it.

(4) The endorsement of McCain is a surprise, given that he has all but written off Iowa. Still -- it says something about the Register's view of the rest of the field. (The Register's endorsement won't have too much impact with Republicans).

"Yet, for all their accomplishments on smaller stages, none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership. In an era of instant celebrity, we sometimes forget the real heroes in our midst."

Comments

Well, I am not surprised. Today's NYT had a detailed story of how Clinton (husband) called repeatedly for Carolyn Washburn (editor). The entire board met with HRC.

The editor only met once with Obama.

Obama is not ready for the Machine. No one is.

The Planet is lucky to have the Machine.

I feel sad, I was hoping to order a pizza, but I just lost my desire. I think I will throw up now...

Today is Bill of Right's birthday. One ammendment is Freedom of the Press. I ask you: Has the Press in US ever been truly free? Is there a checks and balances for this right?

A sad on the BOR birthday. I feel ill violently...

Posted by eorse | December 15, 2007 9:14 PM

Would concur with eorse. The Zeleny piece seems to strongly imply that #42 won this for HRC.

Posted by dry_fish | December 15, 2007 9:22 PM

"Democrats in Iowa unquestionably consult the Register's editorial voice before deciding whom to vote for."

Really? In 2000, they endorsed Bill Bradley. I forget who won, but surely it must have been Bradley, right?

In 2004, they endorsed Edwards, and he ran away with a win as well. Right?

Jeebus! What is with you guys! It's as if all of you have ADHD and can't really remember anything other than the last thing whispered by Clinton's campaign minions into your ever receptive ears.

Posted by Michael's Mom | December 15, 2007 9:26 PM

All that wining and dining were bound to get some results....the Boston Globe got it right:"America needs a president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Barack Obama has this understanding at his core.''

Posted by katharine | December 15, 2007 9:34 PM

By the way, does anyone know if/when/who - the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Waterloo Courier, Quad-Cities Times, and the Sioux City Journal - plan to endorse?

Posted by dry_fish | December 15, 2007 9:52 PM

Isn't Monday the right time for Al Gore to endorse Barry Obama ?
holidays + mojo stealing from the DMR endorsement = perfect to keep the momentum going. If Al Gore does not say anything very soon, we can assume he is not gonna endorse.

Posted by Benjamin | December 15, 2007 9:52 PM

Edwards wouldn't have finished second in 2004 without the endorsement.

Of course, it was Bill Clinton and the machine -- the editorial board MUST be lying when they say Clinton impressed them more in terms of substance and Obama in terms of inspiration. NOBODY else has come away with that impression in real life, right?

The irony is the commenter talks about "the machine" while the infamous Chicago Machine David Axelrod is busy trying to pack the Iowa caucuses with Chicago kids who will temporarily flip there residency.

Posted by Rusty | December 15, 2007 9:55 PM

Oh my god...I knew I heard someone cackling off in the distance!

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 15, 2007 10:07 PM

I think too much is made about this endorsement. Iowans have a lot of exposure to the candidates, and to what other Iowans are saying about the candidates. Just not convinced they are hanging on this newspaper, waiting to hear who to caucus for.

The argument I've heard all night is - look at the bounce Edwards, Mondale and Simon got (and don't look at the Bradley endorsement).

Well, okay. All season, I've heard that Edwards was strong in Iowa because of the organization he built four years ago. Hmmm. Is it organization or endorsement?

Mondale got a boost? Really? Did anyone not think he'd get the nomination, especially once the news about Hart's affair came out? Who else would they have endorsed? And besides, Iowa is a tailormade state for someone like Mondale.

Simon, okay. I don't remember that race as much so I won't argue.

And then there's Bradley. I'm sure this had nothing to do with the endorsement, but timing wise wasn't he climbing in the polls and threatening to make it a real race until about a couple weeks before Iowa? In other words, wasn't his stall around the same time as the endorsement?

Now there's this year. I don't know. Voters thoughts about Clinton are so well established. Either people like her or don't, and even some of those who like her don't want to nominate her.

If the endorsement goes to a lesser known candidate, okay, I can buy voters then taking another look. But with Clinton, I just am not convinced it will cause many to re-evaluate their views of her.

Posted by Paul | December 15, 2007 10:10 PM

Good for Clinton!

As Taylor Marsh recently said:

Where was Obama when Clinton was making speeches in China on women's rights, for which she was championed AND pilloried? Voting "present" on women's rights in Illinois.

While not always successful, she had the balls to stand up and take some punches for her policies, as well as her party. She does her homework, shows up, and takes a stand, which is something you can't always say about Obama.

Posted by JoeCHI | December 15, 2007 10:13 PM

JoeCHI:

Taylor Marsh is a nutcase, and one of the nuttiest people on cable TV. Today she went after Obama for cocaine use.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 15, 2007 10:20 PM

It doesn't matter for Republicans but does for Democrats? Oh, really?

"The Register endorsed John Edwards in 2004....Bill Bradley in 2000....No one in 1992....Paul Simon in 1988..."

Posted by Kristi | December 15, 2007 10:24 PM

It's interesting to highlight the Register's sole stated reason for NOT re-endorsing Edwards: "His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change." Really?? What a platitude. If the source of many of our problems are pro-business rules and regulations, then it strikes me that "cooperation" with those same corporations will not encourage them to give away their benefits. Hasn't historic "cooperation" with corporations created the rut we're in now, with respect to health care and tax policy, to name only two problem areas? The point here is simply that the Register's negative critique of Edwards isn't grounded in reality. If you flip the value of the critique from negative to positive, I guess you could say they were very impressed with HRC's strong connections with the business community/corporate sector, while Edwards has very few such connections...

Posted by DC | December 15, 2007 10:41 PM

A few observations. First, as others have pointed out, the register rarely picks winners. However, it does help Hillary a bit...but I am not sure it helps her a lot. An endorsement for an establishment candidate generally moves the needle less than for an insurgent who gets the validation out of it. This endorsement is less likely to be something that hurts Obama and more likely to be a missed opportunity. While the register endorsement helped Edwards come from the back of the pack in 04, i am not sure how much effect it has on an establishment figure at the front of the pack. Are people really going to rely on others's opinion to influence what they think of HIllary Clinton? Doubt it. People have set opinions of her and the register is not going to make people forget about all her faults. Another point is that this endorsement is clearly tainted by the wining and dining and the gender solidarity claim that people will talk about. I find it funny that the NYT piece by Zeleny this morning seemed to be defensive on the part of the editorial board about the wining/dining/gender factors...it's almost as if the fix was in for Hillary and they were using the Times to spin it as less of a hack job than it really was. But in any case, this is a missed opportunity for Obama...but I think there is a way he can work it to his advantage. Despite his slight lead in the polls, he needs to use this to cast himself as the underdog. He needs to keep his role as the insurgent and kep the troops motivated. This could be good news if it motivates folks to not slip into any level of complacency. An endorsement may sway a few undecided or wavering caucus goers, but intensity and turnout can trump all of that and Obama is uniquely poisitoned to do so.

Posted by RKA | December 15, 2007 10:47 PM

I believe you mean unquestioningly?

I don't think this is that big a deal. Bill even admits that Obama has done much more to get his face out in Iowa, as has Edwards. When push comes to shove Iowans will remember those who worked for their vote, not the ones who seem to feel entitled to it.

Posted by Joe G | December 15, 2007 11:32 PM

I saw this coming at the debate when Nurse Rachet asked Obama the set-up question about why he had so many Clinton advisers. Hillary immediately started cackling and piled on. That Obama knocked the question out of the park shouldn't obscure the purpose of the question or that Hillary was tipped off.

Posted by E. O'Neal | December 15, 2007 11:47 PM

Lets not try to belittle or demean those who do not agree with us.

The DMR endorsement is a big boost for Hillary, but it doesn't mean she won. The endorsement will increase the attention that Hillary gets and will give her a positive spin.

But remember:

Many people have already seen or heard of Hillary. They have chosen not to support her and the endorsement won't change their minds.

We need to focus on the undecided Iowans. Barack needs to have his experience argument made. With Bill and the DMR attacking his experience, the Chicago youth organizer lines just won't do.

There is a war of messages right now: For the last month we have been winning, but we now need to adopt our message. Our superior organization is an advantage, but it won't be enough. We need our message to prevail.

I hope that after this weekend Barack finds a way of reinforcing his superior message against the conservative voices of caution.

We cannot beat republicans by being republican-lite.

Posted by yiannis, baltimore | December 15, 2007 11:51 PM

Saying that Iowa Demos consult the editorial pages of the Register before deciding who to caucus for makes them sound mindless. I don't think so.
It is a new era in politics. The print media matters less and less. Kristi's endorsement history doesn't inspire confidence, does it?

- I'm with Fred!

Posted by Elroy Jetson | December 16, 2007 12:05 AM

E. O'Neal: Obama never answered the question. The quip was very funny. But, it was a substantive question that deserved a serious answer.

Posted by Betty | December 16, 2007 12:23 AM

Betty, you obviously didn't watch the full answer. The quip was only the beginning.

Posted by Meng Bomin | December 16, 2007 12:34 AM

That "quip" was a pretty rude dis. I think that was what had Bubba's blood boiling when he eviscerated Obama in the Charlie Rose interview. I would be willing to bet it is tacked up on a bulletin board at Clinton HQ, as well. Michael Whourney will read it to the troops every morning before they go out to canvass. I would also be willing to bet IT IS NOT THE LAST TIME BARACK OBAMA will hear it. She who laughs last...

Posted by robert ethan | December 16, 2007 12:53 AM

How was what he said in any conceivable way rude? Saying he'd look forward to her advising him? Rude? Do you know what that word means?

Posted by mad6798j | December 16, 2007 12:59 AM

Robert & Mad,
I would consider the Hillary! cackle and the "this I gotta hear." rude. Obama's answer was classy.

- I'm with Fred!

Posted by Elroy Jetson | December 16, 2007 1:21 AM

Hilary deserves this endorsement more than any thing else. It would have been a complete disaster if she had lost the endorsement when her campaign is tittering on the brink of collapse. But this endorsement is symbolic and marginal to impact the outcome of the caucus results. It is false to over-generalize that Iowans consult the opinion of Register before making up their minds whom to caucus for.
A person who does not have solid ground game that is deep and extensive cannot win the caucus; it is because the caucus participants are more or less, core party operatives. Caucus elections are won or lost at the precinct levels. People who participate in the caucuses for a given candidate are cultivated over a period of time, and in months.

Consider number of mock caucus by Obama’s campaign in readiness for the big day; last week they had 1000 house parties all over Iowa that covers all the precincts. Remember that on the average, 100 people participates in each precinct caucus; hence, a campaign that is capable of securing 20-50 persons per precinct wins Iowa in a large field of candidates. Winning caucus is about organize, organize, organize and organize. Endorsement means very little.

Posted by Edmonsky, Sacramento, CA | December 16, 2007 1:29 AM

The endorsement is especially significant for Clinton in terms of timing. Even though the last Rasmussen tracking poll on Thursday showed her support as high as it has ever been in Iowa, (29%), the media spin was that she was "imploding" and her campaign was in "disarray". The endorsement goes a long way towards putting the lie to that lazy meme. Plus the news just leaked that Michael Whourney, the architect of the Gore and Kerry successes in Iowa, has been quietly working on the ground for Hillary in recent weeks.

As for the resignation of Bill Shaheen, well someone had to do it. Maybe Bill drew the short straw. They got the cocaine (unstable, unreliable) meme out and that will do 100 times more harm to their opponent than the loss of Bill Shaheen.

The cherry on top for H C was the DM Register crowning her with the "safe choice" award and marginalizing Obama with the "charismatic but inexperienced" horns. Both of those are talking points right off the Clinton script. Firms up Bill's well publicized dressing down of 'that young whipersnapper' just a couple of days earlier.

Seems to me the universe is unfolding as it should if you are a Clinton supporter.

Posted by robert ethan | December 16, 2007 1:47 AM

The contrast between the depth and tone of the Globe's endorsement of Obama and of DMR's endorsement of Clinton is striking. DMR is comparatively soft and obviously conflicted -- look at how much time DMR spends talking about Obama.

Posted by horizonr | December 16, 2007 2:36 AM

Love the repeat "cackling" quips -- way to stay classy, Obama fans. As for his "message" -- the ONLY substantive issue I've heard him talk about is health care. And every thinking democrat, including his supporters, I've read believes he's wrong (i.e., that his plan will fail without mandates and the type of enforcement states use for car insurance have been successful enough).

"I'm not from the beltway and I represent a new kind of politics" - Barack Obama 2004

"Hello, I'm Jimmy Carter and I'm running for President" - Jimmy Carter 1976

Posted by Big Jake | December 16, 2007 7:48 AM

Then again, at least Obama's supporters realize it's 2007 and not 2004! :-)

Posted by Big Jake | December 16, 2007 7:49 AM

horizonr - I noticed that. I was struck by how the Des Moines paper felt the need to almost apologetically explain why they didn't endorse Obama. Not sure what that means, but thought it was interesting.

Actually I doubt any of this means much, unless it serves to re-energize Hillary's troops, who must have been feeling pretty low recently.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 8:07 AM

This was a good "get" for the Clinton camp. I am not sure if newspaper endorsements are as influential as they use to be- But the Clinton camp should be happy about this. On a side note, I find it interesting that they picked John McCain on the republican side- this picks represent the status quo in my opinion in terms of the word "change" which has been used alot during this political season.

Checkout this column.... http://www.PeterLuster.com

Peter Luster
Columnist (freelance)
www.PeterLuster.com

Posted by Peter Luster | December 16, 2007 8:50 AM

It's time to Rise and Shine again.

Barack Obama for a better America.

Posted by PulSamsara | December 16, 2007 9:57 AM

I have to say this MTP interview with Romney this AM is shaping up to be a quiet fiasco. If people thought Howard Dean went from the center to the left when he stepped up to run, sheesh, look at this guy careen from the center to the right. UFB. It's like watching a guy get sucked out of an airplane. For the first time, I have to wonder if Romney is unbalanced. To put that much calculation on a single plate, and to swallow it in one bite isn't easy.

As this MTP interview winds up, I hear lots of air coming escaping. Funny. This could all wind up with Good ole John McCain getting the nod.

Posted by Gregor | December 16, 2007 11:54 AM

I gotta say if Gore stepped in and endorsed now--especially if he articulated a rebuttal of Bill's Rose comments--it would be perfect, but I don't see it happening. I do agree with the sentiment, though, that this will provoke Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh who smell blood, to press the advantage, go overboard and turn everybody off, things like calling Obama a t.v. personality, that kind of thing. Clinton doesn't care if she loses in Iowa, she has to keep Obama from winning, because a win there and in NH would be fatal. Hence the recent kudos and money from pro-Hillary 527s for Edwards. Hence she is turning up the heat on the acrimony so that Obama will have to draw all his support from the anti-Hillary demographic.

Posted by JC | December 16, 2007 12:51 PM

What is the difference between Mitt and McCain when both have changed their minds?

Well, when McCain does it with one of his patented backstabs and change of hearts, the media loves it because Republicans are usually his victims. He IS the Republican favorite of TV commentators and many liberal rags...

But at least Romney and McCain do change their minds. I find that far more a plus than a negative after seeing Bush stick to failure and failing people with stubborn intransigence. Or people like Brownback and Huckabee who think an open mind is a sign of weakness and anyone who wasn't anti-abortion and pro guns at age 6 but decided to be later is an "impure, less-worthy" person - an "untrustworthy flip-flopper".

I want someone as President able to look at new facts and swallow their stupid pride if they are wrong. I want the same people to not see people they convince on values or issues they are right on to lord that their rigid, inflexible behavior is better because they were right 1st.

The journalist and historian William Manchester said the best thing you can hope for in commanding officers, business leaders, politicians that are intransigent in the face of new facts and events, unwilling to change their minds or replace poor performing people hurting the organization out of a misplaced loyalty to subordinates is that they become "ex-generals, ex-CEOs, ex-leaders" as soon as possible.

The best leaders are those that reassess and change their minds as circumstances arise. FDR, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all swallowed pride and shifted positions now and then...with accusations they were simply being expedient, and sometimes they were. But it seems the worst sort of leader is the one with moral certainty and a deep belief in their infallible judgement - Wilson, Harding, Hoover, LBJ, Carter, Bush II.

Of the current candidates, the ones not locked into ideology - who have admitted error and fixed it - are Edwards, Romney, McCain. The inflexible, stubborn ones appear to be Giuliani, Hillary, Huckabee, and Obama.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 16, 2007 1:08 PM

I can't help but contrast McCain's and Hillary's endorsement by the DMR with the endorsment by Obama by the Boston Globe.

Despite the fact that you have a journalist writing the endorsement, there is absolutely no way to hide the fact that Obama is a lightweight and lacks the experience necessary to run the country. All the Boston Globe were able to highlight was Obama's "intuitive sense of the wider world". And all this because he lived in Indonesia when he was 6 years old. In touting his leadership, they pointed to his position on the nuclear proliferation treaty. Huh?

Contrast with McCain's and Hillary's endorsement where they talk about the achievements and the accomplishements of both politicians. If I were Obama, I wouldn't be seeking more endorsements from the Editorial Boards - it'd be too embarassing even when he gets it.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 1:26 PM

Oh please.

Hillary Clinton has experience...with what?!

I think people are confusing Bill with Hillary. After all, isn't this his campaign now? Isn't that what they mean by having experience on day one?

What experience, really..... does she have that is more unique than Obama or Biden or Richardson? Speaking of unique, Obama has a new, interesting list of experiences that may prove to be beneficial over time and already has been proven by his insight and judgement.

BTW, Hillary long ago wanted to skip Iowa...and yet the DMR still endorses her? Curious.

Posted by bsd | December 16, 2007 1:28 PM

Re Hillary's experience: My husband is a heart surgeon. Do you want me to perform your bypass operation?

Posted by Anne | December 16, 2007 1:54 PM

After what has transpired in Iowa, with the Rose interview of Bill Clinton, the slanderous "kindergarten" allegation, etc., many, many Republicans and Independents are going to allege that, if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, the Democrats are attempting to circumvent the Constitution, because the "experience" that is being talked about is Bill's, not Hillary's. Obama has been an elected official LONGER than Hillary Clinton has, and being "First Lady" is NO kind of "experience" for being President of the United States. For God's sake, the egregious HUCKABEE can claim more ADMINISTRATIVE experience than she can!

We have GOT to end the so-called "safe politics" of the Baby-Booming "Me" Generation. Obama (and Edwards, I'll concede...) are offering the country a fresh start.

I swear that, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, and, if the Repugnats nominate anybody but Rudy Giuliani (a proven fascist, in my books), I'll sit home on election day or vote Libertarian--and there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people like me, who feel the same way!

Posted by digbydolben | December 16, 2007 2:03 PM

"Re Hillary's experience: My husband is a heart surgeon. Do you want me to perform your bypass operation?"

Do you assist in performing the operation? Do you have knowledge about surgery? Are you even a Doctor? If no, then no.

The correct analogy is this: You have a friend who is a neurosurgeon and has assisted the best lead neurosurgeons in the country and has done some of the procedures herself. Would you prefer that friend (Hillary) perform the neurosurgery or would you like it to be performed by the psychologist next door?

Hillary has knowledge about the workings of government and has the experience of actually working for change. What has Obama really accomplished? NOTHING. And not even an endorsement written by the Editorial Board could hide this fact.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 2:05 PM

"After what has transpired in Iowa, with the Rose interview of Bill Clinton, the slanderous "kindergarten" allegation"

It is no allegation. It's the truth. And it was in response to a lie that Obama said about the Clintons repeating a Republican attack point that he knew had already been discredited - the honest man that he is. In response, the Clinton exposed his hypocrisy by showing that he had the ambition of becoming president when he was just a US Senator for a few months, when he was still a state legislator, when he was in college - all the way to when he was still a kindergarten student. Granted that most of us wished that when we were kids, but it doesn't changed the fact that as far as ambition went - no one tops OBAMA's single-minded clawing to the top without doing the work.

"Obama has been an elected official LONGER than Hillary Clinton has, and being "First Lady" is NO kind of "experience" for being President of the United States."

I know of a secretary who's worked in one company for the past 25 years. Do you think she should apply for the CEO position? No. It's not the length of service but the quality of service. Hillary has been in the thick of the national political scene for the past 15 years. Obama was barely into his 1st year as a US Senator when he decided to run for President.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 2:17 PM

What is the empirical evidence to support your claim that many voters in Iowa (or anywhere else) consult the editorials before voting? In my personal experience, the only people who care about such things as editorial endorsements are those who live within the confines of a certain circular highway in the DC area and form something of an echo chamber among themselves. They have to have something to write about to prove their analytical chops. But frankly, does it matter to anyone else? I sincerely doubt it.

Posted by Denver | December 16, 2007 2:27 PM

I think Hillary is a goner and the noises we hear are the democratic establishment giving one last gasp for inevitability. If she can't win primaries how the heck is she going to win the White House? Her numbers have tanked and she is no longer inevitable. Inevitability was and is the only thing she has going for her. She has less experience then just about everybody other then Obama, and Obama is the most inspiring candidate of the bunch with Edwards a close second. Say goodnight Hillary.

Posted by stitch | December 16, 2007 2:28 PM

Ralph, I was a nurse before I married my husband, a heart surgeon. I've participated in many heart procedures. Now, do you want me to do your by-pass?

Posted by Anne | December 16, 2007 2:34 PM

Clinton Inc.: Business-as-usual, Roveian methods and establishment bias.

She promises to deliver a new health care plan by the end of her second term. Right.

Posted by Anon | December 16, 2007 2:35 PM

Anne, not really but I'd rather you do it than some boyscout who just got his CPR merit badge.

Posted by Mike | December 16, 2007 2:47 PM

Hey Ralph, have you ever heard of of kindergardener who writes essays? Think about it.

Posted by RKA | December 16, 2007 2:49 PM

I can't help feeling that Clinton supporters who tout the experience thing just aren't being honest - either with the rest of us or with themselves. If they really wanted experience, they'd have backed Biden, Richardson or Dodd from the start.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 3:29 PM

Think about this image, Democrats: on inauguration day morning, The George and Laura Bush ride in the limo with Bill and Hillary, as torch is passed. They look at each other and have a big-roundhouse laugh. Ha Ha. Funny, ay? Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush...and now Clinton again.

Feeling good about that image?

I'm not. And I was a very, very early supporter of Bill Clinton and still am.

There's only one thing that separates alot of you Democrats from deciding to pull the lever for Obama, and that is this calcified insecurity you have about winning. C'mon. You really don't give two shakes about Hillary at all.

I bet on Obama early. He's a great horse.

Posted by Gregor | December 16, 2007 3:33 PM

Ah, RKA, you're ruining it. I wanted to believe Obama was writing essays at age five. It was kinda like voting for Doogie Howser.

When I was younger, I had a crush on the girl on that show. Those were the good ol' days. Now I refine my crushes to journalists. Norah O'Donnell was big for a while, but I'm over her now.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 3:34 PM

But you are not a Doctor, Anne. I've already corrected your clumsy analogy so answer that.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 3:35 PM

You haven't heard of kindergarteners writing essays - at least simple ones? What kind of education did you get?

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 3:37 PM

Ralph, I'm not a good example, as I was public schooled. But seems to me we were learning how to color inside the lines and share the building blocks in kindergarten. I'm pretty sure we didn't start even learning phonetics until first grade. So if Obama was writing essays in kindergarten, he was big-time accelerated over me.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 3:40 PM

"I can't help feeling that Clinton supporters who tout the experience thing just aren't being honest - either with the rest of us or with themselves. If they really wanted experience, they'd have backed Biden, Richardson or Dodd from the start."

You want winnability AND experience. Hillary has both. Hillary has an overwhelming lead right now over Barack at more than 20 percentage points - despite what the MSM has been touting. And she beats all Republican comers.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 3:41 PM

Ralph, my husband's experience as a surgeon is not mine; Bill Clinton's experience as President is not Hillary's. That's my analogy.

Posted by Anne | December 16, 2007 3:44 PM

Couldn't disagree with you more, Ralph. Clinton doesn't have "winnability," if that's a word.

High negatives starting out, and no one would energize Republicans more. The Democrats would do better with Lyndon Larouche.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 3:45 PM

Ralph, in kindergarten I wanted to be president too. That doesn't make me a megalomaniac.

Hillary's lifelong presidential campaign started with her loveless political marriage. For example, when she "stuck by her man" after Lewinskygate, it was because she needed Bill for her presidential run. (A former president's ex-wife would have no chance.) Her carpetbagging senate career was stepping stone to the presidency.

In 2004, I was hoping so badly that Hillary would run, and at the beginning of this year I thought that she'd make a fantastic president, and I cynically laughed at Obama's foolish audacity in thinking that a black man could get elected president. All hype, I thought. Kiddyboppers choice.

But as the season went on, and I learned more and more about the candidates, I found myself in disbelief as I slowly switched to Barack Obama. First reluctantly, then timidly; until finally, with full enthusiasm. Meanwhile, Clinton has betrayed my trust over and over again. I'm thoroughly disgusted with her.

This is a full reversal that I believe everybody would experience if they followed the race closely. Hillary's the "default" choice. The more people know about her, the less they like her.

Posted by Steve Charb | December 16, 2007 3:47 PM

It may not have been a kindergarten essay - his kindergarten teacher recalled an essay Obama wrote that may have been written at a later time in his education. It's a recollection from a 63 year old man.

Whether the teacher recalled correctly change the fact that Obama wanted to run for the presidency from the get go. This is HIS AMBITION from as early as he was in college. His maliciously accusing Hillary of ambition is not only wrong, it's HYPOCRITICAL.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 3:51 PM

All I can say, Ralph, is I'm glad you're on Hillary's side, lol. I thought most people would have given up on this kindergarten line of attack by now. But I do hope there's others like you who keep it going right on through the first week in February.

Just for the record, in kindergarten I had no idea I wanted to be a political blog smartass, lol. I think I wanted to be Speed Racer if I remember correctly.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 3:56 PM

Anne, the analogy is clumsy. As a nurse, you wouldn't be able to perform surgery. As a politician, anyone can be President. The question is, who has the better quality experience? This is not a controversial point. Hillary has the better experience. Heck, even GWB acknowledges this, for chissakes.

And re: Obama's audacity:

He's running on audacity because that's all he has. He doesn't have the experience. He doesn't have the kind of grasp of the issues that the other candidates have. It was so obvious in the most recent debate. He kept on stammering and changing the topic when asked something he is unfamiliar with. He makes nice stories but rarely goes in depth because he can't. Without the opportunity to attack, his weak grasp of the issues were exposed.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 3:58 PM

Paul, I only wanted to explain that the kindergarten thing was started by OBAMA lying about Hillary and using a discredited Republican attack. That's all. If you can't understand that it was Obama's hypocrisy that was at issue there, I can't help that.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 4:00 PM

Ralph, why was the Clinton camp doing opposition research with Obama's kindergarten teacher in Indonesia? Doesn't that seem a bit over-zealous, even Clintonian?

Posted by Anne | December 16, 2007 4:02 PM

I think you've missed Anne's point, if its possible. You ask which has the better quality experience. Anne's point was that Hillary has experience as a wife.

And... I suppose someone has to say it... but it seems that she wasn't even getting that. Bill was frequently giving other women the experiences.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 4:03 PM

It may have been just a simple phone call away, Anne. That's nothing to what the Obama camp did in trying to dig up Clinton dirt. His is the dirtiest campaign this season. You don't believe me? Here's a challenge:

Give me one inaccurate information that Clinton has said of its campaign or of the others and I will give you 3 inaccurate things that the Obama camp has said of its campaign or his opponents. You'll be hard-pressed to find even ONE inaccurate statement made by Clinton. When it comes to dirt - Obama is tops. And as a bonus, I'll show you how much more classy the Clintons are about this than Obama.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 4:06 PM

No Paul. Hillary's experience was as First Lady who took on Health Care reform. There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. And Hillary has more Senate experience than Obama (barely one year before he decided to run).

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 4:08 PM

By the way, how'd that health care thing work out under her?

True, Clinton was elected to the Senate a few years before Obama. And also true that Nixon had much more experience than Lincoln.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 4:11 PM

Ralph, do you really think one could locate Obama's Indonesian kindergarten teacher with a single phone call? Do you think he's listed that way in the Indonesian phone book? It's a country of 150 million people, and we're also talking about forty years ago. The Clintons are so intent on digging up dirt that they sent someone to Indonesia to report on, "Obama: the Kindergarten years". I'm sure glad they're not on my case. My kindergarten teacher was mean and thought I was a brat. I'd have no chance.

Posted by Anne | December 16, 2007 4:36 PM

Clinton didn't dig up the information about Obama's kindergarten teacher. It was from the Associated Press. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813267/) Sorry, I guess you need to find another factual basis to paint the Clinton dirty. I'm waiting with bated breath.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 4:49 PM

Ah, kindergate was a news story. That's clears that up.

Wait, you don't suppose the Clinton campaign could have fed that story to the press? Nah, they wouldn't do something like that, lol.

By the way, remember that Republican dirty trickster, Novak something I think, claiming Clinton tried to pass "scandalous" Obama information to him? Those Republicans. How low will they go?

Did you happen to catch Novak's follow-up, in which he named the Clinton staffer, and also named the other press guys they approached? Yep, sounding more and more like a Republican press dirty trick.

Oh, and what was the "scandalous" info? That Obama ran a PAC that contributed to other Democratic campaigns, like Hillary's. Shocking bit of news there!

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 4:57 PM

I thought so.

Earlier, the posts were flying, but with the challenge, everybody began to shut up. I thought the Hillary camp was really dirty in their campaign? I'm sure you can find even just one inaccurate statement. I really promise to give 3 of Obama's. I have tons of them at my disposal.

Here's one for free:

He initiated the smear on Hillary with opp. research smear (D-Punjab) and that Bill profited on 9-11 stuff, yet he never even apologized to her. He blamed it on his staff. When someone in Hillary's campaign mentioned about his cocaine use, she immediately apologized and the person in question quit his position. Yet, he found a way to lecture her on negative campaign tactics when she personally apologized.

In contrast, earlier this year, when Elizabeth Edwards made some statement about the unhappy marriage of the Clintons and later personally apologized to her, Hillary did not make a big deal out of it.

Also, where is Michelle Obama’s apology for the smears she directed against the Clintons?

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 4:59 PM

And let's not forget that kindergate was a Clinton campaign press release. She even had it up on her website.

So... for me to believe that the AP originated the story, I'd have to buy that Clinton took a story off the wire, which all news outlets get, and then resent it back out to the news outlets via a press release. I'm just not sure about that one.

Which brings us back to Anne's point. If part of the Clinton argument is that Obama isn't vetted, well... she's already gone as far back as kindergarten. What would the Republicans do? Check out his pre-school records?

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 5:00 PM

JoeCHI,

The head of NOW in Illinois said that it was their strategy to vote "present" on certain abortion issues. They told Obama to vote "present."

Taylor Marsh is one of the more uninformed columnists out there. If the charge were true, it would bear repeating. But the truth is, Obama has a good record when it comes to women's rights and gay rights.

Posted by jcr | December 16, 2007 5:01 PM

They TOLD Obama to vote "present"? That's hilarious!!

Here you are trying to pass a bill and what you want the Senators to do is to vote present? Mwahahahaha!!

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 5:03 PM

Ralph, let's say you're right. Hillary was completely above board and Obama is the dirty trickster. Then how could this inexperienced bumpkin run circles around the "most gifted person of our generation" in spinning the story?

If that's what you really believe, then you ought to run and hide from Clinton, because she's proving herself completely unprepared to take on the Republicans.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 5:06 PM

Paul, stop with the conspiracy theories. It's an old newstory that the Clinton referenced. Just read the article more carefully. It was an Obama piece.

And re: Obama being vetted - he's not.

The Clintons merely referenced old news stories to show the hypocrisy of Obama in claiming that Hillary wanted the presidency early on. He was the one with the AMBITION form as early as he was in college, even earlier. Nobody has done any in-depth dossier on Obama.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 5:08 PM

Here's why I can't vote for Obama: Consumer Bankruptcy and Darfur. On the former, he's a liar: he claims he voted against the creditor-written bill. Bull: he voted for the discharge out of committee, which for 3 years had been the only hope of keeping it from passing -- everyone knew once on the floor of the senate it would pass easily and sail through the house. At least Hillary admitted her position all the way through.

Darfur: first he ducked it, despite pleading in 2004 from Nicholas Kristof and the Save Darfur movement. Then when George Clooney and Oprah got involved, he took a high profile role. He dropped it like a hot potato after he launched his campaign -- to "African" an issue I suppose. Again, Hillary and Edwards aren't any better (Richardson and Dodd have been) on the issue, but they don't claim to be.

So no, I don't trust him to be a better politician than anyone in the beltway. Why should we? Because he was against the war? Was a state representative from the south side of Chicago going to be in favor of the war? That'd be like Sheila Jackson-Lee calling for the invasion of Iran. If Obama was smart he'd tone down the self-rightous, smug tone of his supporters -- it's far more off-putting (to me at least) than the Clinton's sense of entitelment. At least they arguably earned it.

Posted by Boz | December 16, 2007 5:10 PM

Ralph,

You might find it hilarious, but it is the truth nonetheless. Here is one link. I'm sure I can find others.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004?f=h_latest

Posted by jcr | December 16, 2007 5:10 PM

"Then how could this inexperienced bumpkin run circles around the "most gifted person of our generation" in spinning the story?"

Mostly because the MSM really is spoiling for a fight and is giving him and his propaganda coverage. Also, it's because they made a mistake in the communication of some of their points - which everybody makes from time to time.

But remember Paul, that despite all the hoopla, Obama is still down by at least 20 points nationally.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 5:14 PM

JCR, I'm sure they said it. But I don't believe that they're telling the truth. Commonsense alone should tell you otherwise.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 5:15 PM

Had to laugh at the word "dossier." I'm sure the Clinton camp is pretty far along on putting one together.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 5:16 PM

Yes, Ralph, because you know so much more about the affair than the CEO of Planned Parenthood in Illinois, who had numerous meetings with Obama. Why would she come out in defense of Obama if he were soft on abortion rights?

First of all, as far as I can tell, he didn't vote "present" in order to PASS a bill. It's not my fault if your commonsense is no good.

Posted by jcr | December 16, 2007 5:21 PM

Nope, not "at least 20." Rasmussen has it in low double digits and I think I heard just last week the aggregate of all polls was down to about 16.

Too bad for Clinton there isn't a national primary. Then again, if there was, voters everywhere would probably be tuned in like those are now in the early states. If that was the case, those numbers might be completely different.

They may be an even larger Clinton lead. Maybe people elsewhere would see things like you. I doubt it, and suspect the more people from other states compare these candidates, the more Obama will benefit. But I've been wrong before, so we'll see.

Posted by Paul | December 16, 2007 5:21 PM

jcr - common sense. That's all. This is a political season. People exchanging favors left and right. It's not so difficult to imagine what happened. But just use your common sense and you'll eventually see it.

paul - okay you're right. the aggregate of all polls have the lead at 19.1%. Formidable lead no matter how you cut it.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 5:28 PM

Rasmussen Reports latest 3 day tracker has (today)Hillary back above 40% nationally. With so many different polls out there it becomes a case of pick your poison, but Rasmussen seem fairly consistent and reliable. They are constantly polling and seem to have a huge data base. The most surprising thing was that Hillary came in with 82% favorable ratings among Dems, while Obama had just 66%. That is a huge gap.

Posted by robert ethan | December 16, 2007 5:28 PM

Rasmussen Reports latest 3 day tracker has (today)Hillary back above 40% nationally. With so many different polls out there it becomes a case of pick your poison, but Rasmussen seem fairly consistent and reliable. They are constantly polling and seem to have a huge data base. The most surprising thing was that Hillary came in with 82% favorable ratings among Dems, while Obama had just 66%. That is a huge gap.

Posted by robert ethan | December 16, 2007 5:29 PM

And still no response to the challenge. I can only laugh at your intellectual honesty.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 5:31 PM

Paul - Ralph, let's say you're right. Hillary was completely above board and Obama is the dirty trickster. Then how could this inexperienced bumpkin run circles around the "most gifted person of our generation" in spinning the story?

Paul doesn't need to add it, but voters have been fed a lot of BS by the Clintonistas and the "let's get behind a WOMEN being in chrge!!", media.

The most "gifted person of our generation" is a shift from Bill to Hillary, according to their syncophants as the 22nd Amendement blocks Bill's return, officially. So we get stories about how Hillary is the most brilliat lawyer of her generation, of "legendary" acumen in her activities, and of course, was the Co-Governor and Co-President all the time and Bill says (now, at least) that all the calls he got right were really Hillary's doing as the Ubermind, while the bad decsions were....his...

To me she is a facade, a Potemkin in Pantsuits.

And her still being the leading candidate for President is too important and too significant for any voter to swallow Clinton spin (as Ralph does) uncritically.

1. Hillary failed the DC Bar exam, among the 10% that did. She kept that secret from even her close friends, until 2002. The story of her abandoning her "unlimited potential" and sacrifice by going to Arkansas appears to be because all her DC prospects dried up with her failed exam, but she had passed the Arkansas one.

2. Her career as a lawyer is marked by an absence of a litigation history. She was rarely in court. Her jobs and Board appointments came through Bill's clout. Her main role appears to be someone that could be an intermediary between businesses and the State of Arkansas, in return for the appropriate fees.

3. The stories out of Arkansas from former staffers do not support her "Co-Governor" claim. They describe a "bitch" with a monstrously large sense of entitlement who focused on staff, ceremonial details, telling people how indispensible she was to various business and NGO Boards, and lobbying for Rose Law clients. They say she was absent when Clinton met with his executive staff and Arkansas Reps on critical policy matters or budget items.

4. Her Co-Presidency is also on shaky ground. The Clintons have refused to release the memos and meeting minutes that would prove or disprove Hillary was a co-decision maker or even involved in policy on some of the major decisions Clinton made on foreign policy and domestic policy.

We do know that early on, Hillary was more visible and did have involvement in the travel office firings, the insistance that a WOMAN be named Attorney General no male candidates considered, allowing gays in the military, and of course Health care. After that, raging around the country about a vast right wing conspiracy and smear charges that Bill was boinking a succession of women who were just lying women....

All those "Hillary was involved" moments turned to shit. They were fiascos.

=====================
My suspicion is that she is no where near a true Co-Governor or Co-President in her actual past life experience. She got some power through Bill she used to make a living through influence peddling where she didn't have to put in long legal hours or do drudge stuff in a courtroom. Where she influenced power in the mansion or the WhiteHouse was mainly in staff picks and ceremonial stuff - not domestic or foreign policy, except the Hillarycare fiasco.

My opinion is the argument about Hillary or Obama being the more experienced is besides the point. Both likely lack any executive experience. Neither does Edwards. None got any military experience in such leadership. None in the Law business. Or other private business. None as state reps or US Senators.
The 3 frontrunners on the Dem side are the weakest ever from that standpoint, while Dodd and Biden who did have leadership credentials like JFK did in the Senate have gone no where.
Contrast that with Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani having 10+ years as successful executive decision-makers plus McCain having military executive command and Senate leadership experience.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 16, 2007 6:41 PM

Ralph, Dennis Kucinich has more executive experience as a former elected mayor of a large city, than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards do put together.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 16, 2007 6:49 PM

Chris Ford,

And a majority of Democrats are tired of people attacking the Clinton couple only out of a deep love of Republican attack points. We get it. You hate her.

And no matter how you want to turn it, Hillary has more national experience than Obama. Period. She was involved in policy decisions as even journalists who documented them could attest. Even GWB grudgingly admits that she has a distinct advantage on experience. She has more experience in the Senate than Obama who just had 1 year of experience before he decided to run. The stories out of Arkansas are just that, stories. Until you can find documentation, you are just swallowing hook line and sinker the Republican disinformation campaign of the '90s.

The fact is, Obama is the least qualified candidate to seek the nomination since World War II.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 6:58 PM

"Ralph, Dennis Kucinich has more executive experience as a former elected mayor of a large city, than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards do put together."

I agree. So does Dodd, Biden and Richardson for that matter. But you have to look at electability, too. Had anyone of these people been electable, we would be looking at their experience, too with a fine-toothed comb. As it is, we have Hillary, Obama and Edwards as the frontrunner and among them, Hillary holds the experience card.

Posted by Ralph | December 16, 2007 7:00 PM

Anybody who read Bob Woodward's "The Agenda" knows that Hillary played a major and largely positive role in the Clinton administration's first term -- the mystery is why she didn't follow her own lead for the health care council.

Posted by Rusty | December 16, 2007 7:51 PM

Indeed, Hillary did have a big role in the Clinton first term. Like the Zoe Baird Debacle (the Clintons' failed nominee for attorney general before Janet Reno), like Health Care (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because of her secrecy) and losing the Congress to the Republicans for the first time in decades becasue of both Clintons' overreaching and penchant for polarization. I think she did a heckuva job. By the way, Woodward also wrote some very pro-Bush books too.

Posted by RKA | December 16, 2007 11:52 PM

RKA,

Yah. That's all she did. That's all there is to know. Even if you're remarkably selective memory is right, that's still more experience. Naivete is not a luxury we can afford this time.

Posted by Ralph | December 17, 2007 3:43 AM

I like Obama and I'd vote for him against most of the republicans.

I have one BIG PROBLEM with OBAMA though. Obama is a LIGHTWEGHT in foreign policy. His answer about meeting with Castro, Kim, Ahmedinejad without preconditions and preparation. I thought I heard it wrong, so I rewound the TiVo. Whoa, that was way below my expectation for a famed University of Chicago Law School professor and a Harvard Law grad.

And no, Hillary didn't call him naive. It was his idea that was naive.

Just like Barack, I also lived in Southeast Asia during the "Decade of the Dictators" - Suharto, Marcos, Lee, Mahatir - and those were the "nicer" ones. Burma, Vietnam and Cambodia? OMG!

Despite the humongous loss of lives and democratic freedom because of authoritarianism, I think Obama came out of it with an ignorant view of what and how authoritarians think and act.

For the sake of the country, Obama should distinguish his genuine longing for hope (shich is admirable) from false optimism brought about by ignorance (which is deplorable).

Posted by FJ Stratford | December 17, 2007 5:32 AM