Des Moines Register Endorses Hillary And McCain
The Des Moines Register, the largest newspapers in Iowa, has endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective caucuses.
The endorsement of Hillary also took some shots at Barack Obama, agreeing with the Clinton campaign's criticisms about his experience in office: "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 2004, the paper endorsed John Edwards in the Democratic caucus, even though at the time he was way behind in the polls — and he ultimately finished a strong second. The question is, can these endorsements help McCain, who is virtually invisible in this state's polls, and can it aid Hillary in her dogfight against Obama?
Comments (152)
Kefa wrote on December 15, 2007 10:35 PM:It may help those who use a newspaper to make up their minds or are on the fence. I would assume most have already chosen by now.
MonaL wrote on December 15, 2007 10:38 PM:Now will the reports of Hillary's demise in Iowa stop?
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 10:40 PM:A buck says this thread goes to 200 comments.
MyersDC wrote on December 15, 2007 10:46 PM:Des Moines Register's Editorial board is 5 middle aged women and 1 guy. They kinda had to go Hillary, and everyone in Iowa knows it. Either way, obviously not too many folks in Iowa care about their endorsement, as evidenced by their track record: They backed Edwards in '04, Bradley in '00, Harkin in '92 and Simon in '88." Geez, I think they may have just guaranteed that Clinton loses Iowa!
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 10:50 PM:The core of their argument for Clinton is this:
"The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done."
I guess we shall see if people really still believe that Senator Clinton is a disciplined and skilled politician.
By the way, it is somewhat obvious how their reasoning today is in conflict with the reasoning behind picking Edwards in 2004. And they don't really explain it--the closest is when they say, "But this is a different race, with different candidates."
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 10:50 PM:They're definitely due.
framecop wrote on December 15, 2007 10:52 PM:The board is actually 8 women and 1 guy.
I doubt this endorsement will help Hillary Clinton in anyway.
I think rocky days are ahead for the Clinton team, especially if the Huffington Post story gets legs.
SarahWest wrote on December 15, 2007 10:53 PM:They probably just felt sorry for her after the week she's had! Especially in their own debate when she cackled and then said "I'd like to hear that!" before getting humilated by Obama in front of a live tv audience (easily the funniest moment of the campaign thus far.)
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 10:54 PM:DTM: Is it your contention that this is not a different race than 2004, with different candidates?
MyersDC wrote on December 15, 2007 10:55 PM:No, the board "who participated" is 5 women and a guy...it says it right on the bottom of the endorsement:
The Register�s editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process were: Laura Hollingsworth, publisher; Carolyn Washburn, editor; Carol Hunter, editorial page editor; Linda Lantor Fandel, deputy editorial page editor; Rox Laird, editorial writer; and Andie Dominick, editorial writer.
NYFM wrote on December 15, 2007 10:57 PM:Well since all the other Iowa papers (seemingly) picked Kerry last time I guess the DMR has to continue their errant ways. They are definitely right about McCain though- He's clearly the best choice for Republicans this time around. As Bill Clinton might say, it's not even close.
Sheldon wrote on December 15, 2007 10:57 PM:Even with the Register's endorsement, Hillary Clinton will still have a tough fight in Iowa with Barack Obama.
framecop wrote on December 15, 2007 10:58 PM:The Des Moines Register is owned by a different company than owned it last time. This time it's owned by a media conglomerate that probably prefers media consolidation, so there is no way it was going to endorse John Edwards this time, when he ha spoken out against consolidation.
Hillary "corporate lawyer" Clinton and her husband Bill "Telecommunication Act" Clinton were probably godsends for the Gannett Company, which also owns USA Today and the Detroit Free Press.
framecop wrote on December 15, 2007 10:59 PM:John Edwards will receive a much more potent endorsement on next week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/big-iowa-endorsement-for-_b_76931.html
CalD,
No. Rather, I am pointing out that such a vague statement doesn't actually do much to explain the obvious conflict between their reasoning in 2008 and their selection of Edwards in 2004.
Eugene N wrote on December 15, 2007 11:04 PM:Des moines register's endorsement Senator Clinton is a clever move and consistent with facts. While Obama is a fine man, he clearly lacks the stellar experience needed to change the course of this country. GOP will rip Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination. Hillary is an astute politician and with the support of Bill Clinton will survive potential GOP attacks and win the White House for dems.
Eugene N, KY
Bigsky in Iowa wrote on December 15, 2007 11:04 PM:This is pretty much a non-issue... outside of Des Moines the effect of the endorsement is zero. The paper is trying to keep it's relevancy these days and it's not working. The Sunday Register sells about 5 copies a week here in my town 1.5 hours away from DM... not exactly a major player.
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 11:08 PM:Marc Armbinder thinks it's a major boost for Clinton and that "Many Democrats in Iowa unquestionably consult the Register's editorial voice before deciding whom to vote for." He also thinks the Obama campaign really, really wanted this endorsement. He thinks two other things besides that.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 11:08 PM:Thing is, Hillary doesn't have to win Iowa. She just has to be in the mix. I think the DM Register goes a long way to insuring that. Clinton campaign now has Michael Whouley working the ground there, and he is the guy who pulled it out for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Both were trailing going in. Probably a more significant boost than any endorsement they could have acquired.
Plus I think Obama got Bill's blood boiling with that dis of Hillary during the last debate. "Maybe I'll get you to advise me, Hillary.".
O.K. Hotshot, lets go :)
You can bet that little gem is posted on the HQ bulletin board.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 11:11 PM:. The Sunday Register sells about 5 copies a week here in my town 1.5 hours away from DM... not exactly a major player.
So what do the other 3 residents of your town do, Bigsky, borrow a used copy from their neighbor?
I'm an Iowan and America has to see the "rating of other candidates" on DMR's web site as part of the endorsement:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/NEWS/71215022
Check out this nugget on their "decision" between Hillary vs. Obama:
"Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges."
OMG. Please tell me that DMR is not comparing Hillary Clinton to FDR!! FDR is laughing in his grave right now! Hillary has not passed a single piece of legislation in the Senate since her arrival in early '01. That's SIX years. How is that being a "masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress." ???
Wow. Heckuva job, Des Moines Register! No wonder no one pays any attention to you.
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 11:14 PM:Of course Ambinder also thought Clinton was one of the winners of the final debate, while all the available evidence suggests otherwise.
So I appreciate the work Ambinder does in reporting facts. But his predictions about how voters will think and behave are no more reliable than any pundit's.
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 11:16 PM:DTM,
Maybe you just didn't read the whole paragraph:
Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.
See how much more sense that makes in context? When they say it's a different race, with different candidates, they mean a different John Edwards too -- i.e., John Edwards 2.0.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 11:17 PM:All you obamers, please tell us what would you hotheads had said had the DMR endorsed your loverboy!
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 11:21 PM:Lots of people thought that Clinton was one of the winners of the last debate, at least to the extent that there were any. I also think she won the news cycle about the debate, which is actually more important, since a lot more people consume news than watch debates.
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 11:21 PM:CornBred,
It also appears that the Register is stuck in a false dichotomy. In particular, it is true that FDR was very skillful when it comes to legislation. But he was equally good at inspiring the nation (e.g., "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself"). Indeed, the two things are related, because fear of obstructing a popular agenda is a major aid to a President trying to work with Congress.
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 11:25 PM:CalD,
And with all due respect, maybe you didn't read what I wrote above. I didn't write that not endorsing Edwards in 2008 is at odds with endorsing Edwards in 2004. I wrote the reasoning they are using today is at odds with endorsing Edwards in 2004.
DonnaG wrote on December 15, 2007 11:25 PM:I just perused seventeen pages of readers' comments at the Des Moines Register site connected to their endorsement of Clinton.
Overwhelmingly the comments are disagreeing with that endorsement. I just thought that was interesting. After the first couple of pages [reading chronologically], the pro-Clinton comments were suppported by [probably the same] four others in agreement, while anti-Clinton comments were supported by 8 to 20+ others in agreement.
Go figure what that may actually mean about the votes.
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 11:27 PM:CalD,
When you say "lots of people", do you mean actual voters, or pundits?
Similarly, is the fact that you as a Clinton supporter thought that Clinton won the news cycle supposed to be a good indication of what actual voters think?
DTM wrote on December 15, 2007 11:30 PM:DonnaG,
Well, the conventional wisdom is that newspaper endorsements do not matter much directly, but to the extent they basically operate as a free campaign ad, they may be helpful. But obviously if people are not buying what that editorial is arguing, then it is basically like an ad that people find unconvincing.
RanStevens wrote on December 15, 2007 11:32 PM:I think this endorsement is most useful for Clinton because it'll push the "is her campaign failing" stories out of the news.
Does anyone here know what the circulation of the DMR is?
Amber wrote on December 15, 2007 11:37 PM:HIllary will never be president. It's funny the Des Moines Register backed Edwards in 2004 who had less experience than Obama and use the false reasoning that somehow Hillary has experience. She has no more experience than either Edwards or Obama. Her opponents have made that point too, but the press isn't listening. If first lady is experience enough to be president Maybe Laura rather than Jeb will be aiming for the White House next.
Considering that Kerry got the vast majority of newspaper endoresements in 2004 over Bush, this endorsement will only be a factor to media pundits and Hillary's camp (who if you read some of the above posts, you can see are hard at work (putting up posts-seriously!))
Iowans don't like to be told how to vote, and won't be. HIllary's camp might have better luck if they keep trying Karl Rove's tactics of vote suppression. The Clinton people as noted in a NYT editorial piece yesterday are busy trying to suppress the student vote-a voting block who overwhelmingly backs Obama.
Hillary will come in a distant third behind Edwards and Obama.
Uuuuhhh..Amber, I think the issue is with Obama bussing in OUT OF STATE STUDENT VOTERS. From Illinois, to be exact. Not cricket with any of the campaigns, or the Democrats of Iowa.
anon wrote on December 15, 2007 11:50 PM:Previous DMR Democratic endorsements
1984: Walter Mondale
1988: Paul Simon
2000: Bill Bradley
2004: John Edwards
Ouch. It's like a graveyard. Obama wanted this one, but now I'm wondering if he's smiling somewhere.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 11:54 PM:"CornBred," I chuckle along with you. The phrase that you chose actually seems to describe Obama much more than it does Hillary. JFK had the whole "inexperience thing shoved down his throat to no avail.
"Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges."
HIllary has no more experience than Obama or Edwards, and if "experiene was such a big factor, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are certainly the men for the job and should have gotten the endorsement.
Like JFK, Obama has the unique capacity to inspire the Bush-weary nation. Edwards also has much more of that spark than Hillary-the-woman-who-will-never-be-president.
Hillary will win Iowa as much as McCain will. Her campaign is in a free fall and is showing her lack of youthful vigor by her campaign's big effort to suppress the student vote.
Amber wrote on December 15, 2007 11:54 PM:"CornBred," I chuckle along with you. The phrase that you chose actually seems to describe Obama much more than it does Hillary. JFK had the whole "inexperience thing shoved down his throat to no avail.
"Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges."
HIllary has no more experience than Obama or Edwards, and if "experiene was such a big factor, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are certainly the men for the job and should have gotten the endorsement.
Like JFK, Obama has the unique capacity to inspire the Bush-weary nation. Edwards also has much more of that spark than Hillary-the-woman-who-will-never-be-president.
Hillary will win Iowa as much as McCain will. Her campaign is in a free fall and is showing her lack of youthful vigor by her campaign's big effort to suppress the student vote.
robert ethan wrote on December 16, 2007 12:01 AM:Given that the Boston Globe and DM Register both announced their choices at the same time, and each picked one of the two leading candidates on the Dem side, you have to wonder about collusion. For the media, the tighter and more prolonged the race is, (particularly if two candidates with contrasting "storylines" are featured), the better they like it. That situation is gold for them. It's the World Series, Superbowl, World Cup, and Olympics all rolled into one. They would have it go on forever if they could.
anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 12:04 AM:The backstory on this endorsement ain't that pretty in Iowa. Word in des moines is Bill Clinton has been wining and dining the editorial board and sugartalking 'em in the way only he can. might be good for net half a percentage point for hillary. would have been a killer for hillary had she NOT got it, because they've been writing glowing stuff about her all year.
Fred G wrote on December 16, 2007 12:15 AM:Here's a NYT article on the Des Moines Register endorsement process. Almost embarrasing.
robert ethan wrote on December 16, 2007 12:30 AM:You think the candidates would get together one of these years and ask each other "Do you really want to go out to Iowa and grovel before a bunch of really ugly hicks?".
"No". "Not at all". "Definitely not!".......
"O.K. lets agree WE ALL SKIP ****ING IOWA!".
"Yay!". "Yahoooo!" "Right on!"
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 12:48 AM:I'm sure you guys would all be trashing the Register in exactly same way if they had endorsed Barack Obama.
NCSteve wrote on December 16, 2007 1:06 AM:Okay, Cal, you don't get to win your bet on this going to 200 comments by pumping up the total yourself.
APS wrote on December 16, 2007 1:28 AM:The DMR endorsment is a huge psychological boosrt for Hillary, her campaign and her supporters! While an endorsement does not necessaril ensure a win in the Iowa caucus, it is definitely better to win the endorsment than lose it to Obama. Obama supporters who are being discmissive of DMR now, I am sure, would be singing its praises if Obama had won the endorsement! By the same token, Hillary supporters (of which I am one) would be dismissing DMR if Obama had won the endorsement. That is just the way it goes! Overall, it is a net positive news for Hillary! Finally, she is beginning to win a few news cycles even though the mainstream media is overwhelmingly for Obama.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 1:40 AM:I was just looking at my spreadsheet of 2004 primary polling (there was no pollster.com or RCP chart then) and it appears that for whatever reason, John Edwards jumped about 10 points in the polls immediately after the Des Moines Register endorsement.
A Research 2000 done on 1/5-7/04 had Edwards at 8%, very much in line with other polls around the same time. He had been meandering between 5 and 11% since September, roughly where Bill Richardson is this year. The Des Moines Register endorsement was on the 11th of January. Immediately afterward, Edwards was at 18% in a new Research 2000 poll on 1/12-14 and 17% in line with a Zogby telephone poll done at the same time. He had been at 5% in Zogby's previous poll in December.
Of course you never want to infer causality from a coincidence but that's quite a coincidence. John Kerry received the Quad-City Times endorsement on January 8th and went from 18% to 21% in the two Research 2000 polls and 22% in the Zogby poll.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 1:56 AM:Or how about:
...Immediately afterward, Edwards was at 18% in a new Research 2000 poll on 1/12-14 and 17% in a Zogby telephone poll done at the same time. He had been at 5% in Zogby's previous poll in December...
(I wish I could type.)
Michael's Mom wrote on December 16, 2007 2:00 AM:CalD-
" it appears that for whatever reason, John Edwards jumped about 10 points in the polls immediately after the Des Moines Register endorsement."
Do you think that opinions in Iowa are as unformed about Hillary now as they were about Edwards in 2004?
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 2:14 AM:MM: Lots of folks in Iowa pride themselves on never really making up their minds completely until caucus day -- for one thing there's more free chili and pancakes that way. Currently about 10% of likely caucus-goers are just plain undecided and around 50% I believe say they could still change their minds.
HopeObamaWins wrote on December 16, 2007 2:18 AM:As an Obama fan, I'd like to say thank you to the DMR for endorsing Hillary. After the week she had, her campaign really needed something positive to happen. We Obama supporters really wanted that endorsement of course (because Iowa would have been over), but I'm fairly certain that Clinton and her supporters would have imploded and gone on a killing spree somewhere had Obama got it. America is a safer place today due to the Register's endorsement. It probably prevented a few suicides as well.
**This ad was paid for and approved by the Obama Committee for the Mental Health of ClintonNation**
jbentley wrote on December 16, 2007 2:40 AM:Hillary is fine and dandy, but Obama is the future, and if he is nominated, he will clobber the GOP candidate. That's all there is to it. I'm sorry that the Register has decided to just back the Establishment candidate. If Obama wins the nomination, he will win the general election by a landslide that Hillary can only dream of.
kjoe wrote on December 16, 2007 3:03 AM:That one woman in the times Picture---wasn't she the one who moderated the debate (supposedly won by Clinton--rofl)and isn't she the one who asked Biden the racial question, Dodd the question about his father, and the one who attempted to trap Obama with the question about using Clinton's advisers since he was light on foreign policy experience?
Nice of them to endorse JOHN-how do we beat the bitch--Chelsea is ugly because Janet Reno is her real father--McCAIN. I took that a sign that Rudy really is so sickeningly disgusting that his positions on the issues make no difference. It would be better for Hillary if Rudy were the republican nominee---McCain will be the only possible republican winner.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 5:36 AM:CalD wrote: I was just looking at my spreadsheet of 2004 primary polling (there was no pollster.com or RCP chart then) and it appears that for whatever reason, John Edwards jumped about 10 points in the polls immediately after the Des Moines Register endorsement.Had Obama won the endorsement the Obama supporters would have trumpeted it from the rooftops. Now it’s all “nah, it won’t matter much…”
These sour, sour grapes. :-)
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 7:16 AM:DemAC, "Had Obama won the endorsement the Obama supporters would have trumpeted it from the rooftops. Now it’s all “nah, it won’t matter much…”
Hillary Lovers attribute their worst attributes to their opponents. Not everyone thinks like you. Some people in this campaign are motivated by honest love of country, not arrongance, greed and dishonesty as a policy.
Time will tell whether your hope for a miracle in Iowa will come true and the Des Moines Register endorsement will rescue Hillary Clinton from plummeting support. I wouldn't bet on it, if I were you.
It now looks like Hillary will finish a weak third, behind Obama and Edwards. And the Hillary Lovers will spin: But but but Iowa is not really important, and the Des Moines Register endorsement is the moral equivalent of winning the caucuses.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 16, 2007 7:25 AM:APS "The DMR endorsment is a huge psychological boosrt for Hillary, her campaign and her supporters!"
That is good to hear. Maybe it will bring them back into focus and we can have some real debate on substance, policy, issues. Hillary and followers are world champion mud wrestlers, and have been miffed and furious that they can't bring all the candidates into the muck with them. The Register's endorsement of course means that the corporate-vested establishment newspaper is endorsing the corporate-vested establishment candidate. Big News. Hillary is releaved to keep an endorsement that was assured the day she announced. Hurray! A pause in the rapid slid downhill.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 7:33 AM:anon wrote "Previous DMR Democratic endorsements"
1984: Walter Mondale
1988: Paul Simon
2000: Bill Bradley
2004: John Edwards
And now add:
2008: Mrs. Bill Clinton
Hillary-ous! The Register has assured it will continue to bat 1000.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 8:08 AM:Anonymous wrote: Hillary Lovers attribute their worst attributes to their opponents. Not everyone thinks like you. Some people in this campaign are motivated by honest love of country, not arrongance, greed and dishonesty as a policy.Oh, spot on! How on earth did you figure out that I’m only in it for the “arrongance (sic!), greed and dishonesty”? What gave me away? Well, well, me and all other Hillary supporters are now off to our weekly wallowing in corporate bribes.
Cheers! :-)
Jerry Mills wrote on December 16, 2007 8:20 AM:OUTSTANDING! IOWANS ARE NOT AS STUPID AS OBAMAWINPHREY HAD HOPED!
he wrote on December 16, 2007 9:01 AM:So the next question is: does the Boston Globe's endorsement of Obama affect the Clinton firewall in NH?
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 16, 2007 9:10 AM:Congratulations to Senator Clinton (Register) and Senator Obama (the Globe),
Both are nice, but essentially irrelevant. Likewho reads newspapers except middle aged people like me. I was, quite frankly. more surprised by the Globe than the Register. I am very interested in what the Concord Moniter does.
Not a Hillary supporter, but obviously I'll vote for her in the general if she gets the nod.
But how will the campaign adjust to polls that consistently show her starting off with 50% of the electorate dead-set against voting for her under any circumstances. I know plenty of disgruntled Republicans and Independents who just flat out say they will never vote for her under any circumstances, despite the fact that there's very little policy between them and Hillary.
My own sense is that she would have great difficulty overcoming the caricature of herself that Republicans have already been using.
Ronald Crawford wrote on December 16, 2007 9:44 AM:I don't understand why a small mostly white state like Iowa should have so much clout in how the new pres. should be.
They have never elected a woman to any high office and 80% of the Repb. think GWB is doing a GREAT job.
I don't understand why a small mostly white state like Iowa should have so much clout in how the new pres. should be.
They have never elected a woman to any high office and 80% of the Repb. think GWB is doing a GREAT job.
Nice endorsement for Hillary. Any candidate would have wanted that endorsement. I don't think it'll be enough for her to win Iowa, but we shall see.
As for those complaining about Iowa having its caucus first. . . it's tradition. Get over it. No one is forcing you to support whoever wins Iowa and everyone knows there's a lot of primary season left afterwards. It's good to have small states first so that voters who can have a chance to meet the candidates get to have their say instead of it being a huge media war in the major markets.
bridoc wrote on December 16, 2007 10:44 AM:I know it has been said, but I'll sleep better if I say it again. Barack = more legislative experience than Hillary. Barack has over ten years experience teaching constitutional law, which damn near needs to be a requirement of holding the office of president. Yes, Hillary has more experience being a First Lady and greeting heads of state and their wives, that is just super duper, but seriously, I'm sick of this bullshit experience argument. Obviously her "experience" didn't help her make good decisions on Iraq, and obviously her "experience" with Iraq didn't help her make good decisions on Iran.
Basically, I'm sick of all of her endorsements reading the exact same campaign talking points without backing them up with anything. I'm embarrassed for them.
Kefa wrote on December 16, 2007 11:16 AM:Iowa or NH are not the grand prize for HRC. Sure she would like Iowa and her fight really was to start at NH. This needing Iowa has been press driven. BHO needs this win, not us. Edwards needs this win, not us. I do see alot of sour grapes posting in the DMR piece. I also see crowing about the Globes piece as if NH's care about what
Globes feels. I think it hurts only Romney.
BHO and Edwards folks wanted the love of DMR and for whatever the reason you didn't get it. Stop crying and blaming. They see the risk in the other guys and are trying to speak from reason. Listen to reason.
This is a long race.
CalD said: "Lots of people thought that Clinton was one of the winners of the last debate."
And all of them are paid to think it and say it with ill-gotten, corporate contributions that carry a heavy debt of influence.
robert ethan said "Uuuuhhh..Amber, I think the issue is with Obama bussing in OUT OF STATE STUDENT VOTERS."
Uuuuuuhhh, Robert. Hillary wants to prevent students from out of state who LIVE AND GO TO COLLEGE IN IOWA from participating in the caucuses, because they are overwhelmingly for Obama.
DemAC, you're a divider. Try persuasion as a tactic instead of mean-spirited, amateurishly ineffective, intimidation.
random wrote on December 16, 2007 11:45 AM:Kefa said "Iowa or NH are not the grand prize for HRC."
So the rationalizing has begun full tilt. What happened to Hillary the inevitable? All the Hillary champions 3 months ago were saying if Obama doesn't win Iowa it's all over. Hillary shifted huge resources to Iowa and has spent huge amounts of time, as has Bill, campaigning there. Seems to contradict the view that it's really not an important outcome.
Losing Iowa, and particularly coming in a weak third will be a big blow. The question will be can Mrs. Bill Clinton survive such a major voter rejection.
nogo war wrote on December 16, 2007 12:08 PM:First...no matter who got the DMR endorsement their side would be crowing and others would be dismissing.
Second...and to me the most important is the DMR saying that Edwards is more strident in his rhetoric concerning "big Business" than he was in 2004...and that is a negative.
The vote in Iowa and elsewhere will demonstrate that this is a positive.
So many of us are tired of the current Dem Leadership in Congress with their "Let's get together and compromise" bullshit.
Establishment Thinking = Self-Destruction
I do not hate HRC. If I have to, I will vote for her. However, it is obvious to me that she is deeply flawed and highly vulnerable as a potential nominee.
IT IS THE LACK OF AUTHENTICITY, STUPID!
We do not know who Hillary really is, nor what she really believes. She is so carefully packaged and tightly scripted we do not know her real thinking. Her every utterance seems calculated for political effect. She panders. She takes multiple positions on even the simplest questions in an attempt to please everyone.
This lack of authenticity and forthrightness leaves many feeling that we cannot trust her. In turn, this lack of trust makes her highly vulnerable to attacks. When the voters have pre-existing doubts about the character of a candidate, attacks stick.
Hillary Clinton will be the "Anti-Teflon" candidate; Republican attacks will stick. The vast majority of Indies and Republican are prepared to believe the worst about HRC. She would have a extrordinarily difficult time winning over the independent voters who typically decide general elections.
In addition, the manner in which she is attempting to win the nomination is extremely devisive. In a matter of days she went from deploring mudslinging and personal attacks to hurling the most vile mud with both hands. I despise her political style. She seems willing to do or say anything to win. Her sleezy tactics only confirm her meta-image as mean, cold, calculating, and compulsively ambitious.
I may vote for her, but I will never like her, and I will never trust her after the type of campaign she has run.
She already runs worse in head-to-head match-ups against the Repugs than either Obama or Edwards. She has the least room for positive growth. She is a one-woman turn-out machine for the Repubs, making her presence on the top of the ticket a problem for down ballot dems in purple districts and states all across the country.
Nominating Hillary would expose the Dems to unnescessary risk all across the board. The DMR editorial board has its collective head in the sand.
Bottom Line: Hillary is dangerous and Obama is in far away the best position to stop her.
Jim J wrote on December 16, 2007 12:30 PM:You people attacking the edit board for being mostly women are disgusting. What a bunch of sexist asshats.
All-male edit boards endorse male candidates all the time and no one makes a peep about it. And I guess if the Globe board were majority black the Obama endorsement would also be worthless, right?
Just disgusting on your part. I feel sorry for any women in your lives, if indeed you have any other than your mothers.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 12:51 PM:
I guess we shall see if people really still believe that Senator Clinton is a disciplined and skilled politician.
I am not sure the perception ever changed... Except in your mind where Hillary has already lost...
A couple of over-zealous supporters got out of hand, but she dealt with both swiftly before the damage was extensive, including the brilliant timing of Shaheen's self-immolation: right after the IA debate so-called "zinger", which altered the narrative.
This endorsement is a huge plus for Hillary...
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 1:00 PM:I guess we shall see if people really still believe that Senator Clinton is a disciplined and skilled politician.I am not sure the perception ever changed... Except in your mind where Hillary has already lost...
A couple of over-zealous supporters got out of hand, but she dealt with both swiftly before the damage was extensive, including the brilliant timing of Shaheen's self-immolation: right after the IA debate so-called "zinger", which altered the narrative.
This endorsement is a huge plus for Hillary...
colonpowwow wrote on December 16, 2007 1:05 PM:I love all this "we don't really know Hillary" stuff. Could you tell me who from the field that we "know" better from the last 20 years?
Here's all you need to know. When it counts, Hillary voted 95%-plus on progrssive, liberal issues in her nearly 8 years in the Senate as rated by the ADA. This ties her with Barack Obama who only has 2 years of a voting record to asses (when he bothers showing up to vote), and John Edwards's 78% vote rating on progressive issues.
I'll be so glad after Clinton wins at least three of the first four primaries heading into Super Tuesday where she begins crushing whatever fine Democratic candidates are still left.
Then other lifetime progressive Democrats like me can blissfully stop being assaulted by the whining leftist-behinds who post their anti-HRC venom here ad nauseum, and we can all turn our attentions to crushing the GOP fodder and electing President Clinton.
Obama in 2016!
mcc wrote on December 16, 2007 1:45 PM:I'm mostly just baffled that the "inexperience" criticism is coming from of all people Hillary Clinton supporters. If that criticism was coming from, say, John McCain, it would make perfect sense and be a potentially valid criticism. But... Hillary Clinton? What experience does Hillary Clinton have? She has seven years in the Senate, Obama has three. Obama has more experience as an elected official, but somehow we're supposed to conclude that Obama's eight years in a state senate count for nothing but Clinton's four extra years in the federal Senate count for everything.
Or maybe the "experience" talking point is really trying to tell us that Clinton is *married to* someone with experience?
Terese wrote on December 16, 2007 1:54 PM:Considering how Hillary's staff has been caught stuffing comments on blogs and articles and banned, I assume there are some of her people plugging away here. I don't trust Clinton. She's a pandering weasel, sneaky and insincere. Her campaign with all of their smears last week is dirty and negative.
Considering that Fox's top political story was her endorsement by the Des Moines Register and that they never mentioned that their very own Republican John McCain also got the newspaper's endorsement speaks volumes.
Republicans and Fox want and are prepared to beat the polarizing, divisive Hillary Clinton. Anybody but Clinton.
vena wrote on December 16, 2007 2:02 PM:I think that is a nice endorsement for Clinton and McCain in Des Moines and also for Obama with The Globe. However, you would hope that people don't support a candidate just b/c a newspaper backs them. Yes, maybe you'd be encouraged to do a little more research, but papers have their own bias just like everyday folks. I think Iowa and Boston are smart enough to see that. BTW, these endorsements may be too late, most
people have already drawn their lines in the sand.
Hillary Clinton supporters must be the most naive and uneducated voters in the history of the U.S.A She is corrupt from inside out. The information is all over the web. She has no plan for the poor and middle class of America, I have a huge family which has been democratic our whole entire lives and Hillary Clinton will not get any of our votes if she become the democratic nominee.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 2:28 PM:Bummer.
Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 2:46 PM:colonpowwow. With all due respect, "when it counts" Hillary has voted for Bush's blank check and to rubber-stamp Bush intel on Iran before the release of the NIE (not that she reds those) and without holding hearings.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 2:59 PM:I heard earlier on CNN that the Clinton campaign has deployed turn-out maven Michael Whouley to Iowa. I thought that Clinton's "Hilly-copter" sounded a lot like Kerry's "Whouley-birds" -- it's practically a trademark. Whouley is also widely acknowledged as one of the best field organizers on the Democratic side of the business. They actually call him "the Wizard."
desider wrote on December 16, 2007 3:41 PM:mcc,
Simply go look up Wikipedia on Hillary and compare almost every talking point for Obama. Get out the vote initiatives? She's got it. Community outreach/activism? She's got it. Constitutional law? She's got it. Attorney for community causes? She's got it. Senatorial experience? She's got it. Law journal, research and published papers? She's got it. Teaching law at the University? She's got it. Except for the last, every one more than Obama.
Everyone's eager to ignore her work with the Watergate committee, with Mondale's labor committee, with 4 non-Clinton Presidential campaigns, with various roles in college student government (back when student activism meant something), with practical experience, strong research, creations of foundations and serving on boards for child advocacy.
Desider, you're right I guess. . . her experience is very similar to Obama's.
Of course, there's the question of whether her experience has informed good judgment. I don't know about that. She's made some of her worst votes as a Senator on some of the most important issues. Also, when it comes to campaigning, she's saved her biggest blunders for the closing weeks. So, if you are just comparing experience then there are a lot of similarities and people looking to vote on experience alone should probably turn to Biden or richardson. But if you look at how their experience informs their judgment, I think that Obama stands out compared to Clinton as he does when you look at a host of other traits.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 3:51 PM:I think it is somewhat obvious that to the extent a major newspaper endorsement can get its readers to at least pay attention to an extended argument for a particular candidate, that is most likely to help someone who is not one of the frontrunners (because more people are already paying attention to the frontrunners).
So, I don't if the Register endorsement actually did help Edwards in 2004 (a lot of other stuff was going on at that time), but it wouldn't surprise me to the extent it might have helped distinguish him from the rest of the non-Dean/Gephardt/Kerry field. I also think that if the Register has, say, endorsed Biden or Richardson (and they wouldn't have needed to change their editorial much, in fact, to do so), then it might have helped one of those two improve their final results.
But to be clear, I personally would not rule out this endorsement helping Clinton. But I do think it depends on whether Register readers actually find their argument convincing, and as applied to Clinton.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 4:20 PM:wilma wrote on December 16, 2007 2:20 PM:Hillary Clinton supporters must be the most naive and uneducated voters in the history of the U.S.A She is corrupt from inside out. The information is all over the web. She has no plan for the poor and middle class of America, I have a huge family which has been democratic our whole entire lives and Hillary Clinton will not get any of our votes if she become the democratic nominee.
As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I take exception to your remarks, which, in fact, resemble you more than they resemble most of HRC's supporters who post here and have repeatedly said they would support anyone who ultimately emerges as the party's nominee. For anyone who writes such drivel to call anyone uneducated shows their own lack of education. Did you know that Hillary has been in public life for more than 30 years during which she's been lauded by fellow senators for her hard work and dedication, and has received award and praises for her work in defense of the most defenseless ones in any society: children. Are you aware that as first lady she traveled extensively promoting children and women issues? Are you aware of her health care plan that was thoroughly dissected and then lauded? Are you aware of her foreign policy positions, including very recently in a piece in Foreign Affairs in which she endorsed "Liberal Internationalism" as how she intends to approach FP after she is elected POTUS? And what exactly makes Hillary "corrupt inside out"? Shouldn't you turn over your evidence to the DOJ or the Senate Ethics Committee so that she could be investigated for corruption? If she is indicted for corruption, wouldn't that be of great public service as it would rid the country of a vice so bad that it'd conned New Yorkers into electing it to a statewide office, not once but twice, and overwhelmingly?
Your large family of "Democrats" can vote for someone else for I am not even sure a family that harbors views such as yours toward a Dem candidate with the most progressive record of the top contenders and a lifelong history of honorable public service can be considered as true "Democrats.
Now, as you said, the information is all over the internet. Go inform yourself and then maybe you'll be qualified to pontificate. For some of us who are truly informed, you come out sounding like a real dimwit. If you want to engage in insults, we'll make sure that you're not disappointed...On the other hand, civility will beget civility.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 4:22 PM:The endorsement of a respected newspaper can definitely help to move undecideds. (So can Michael Whouley.) I actually thought the comparison to Joe Biden was a major get, too. See if you can guess why.
Desider wrote on December 16, 2007 4:28 PM:Yes, Jeremy, experience doesn't preclude the possibility of screwing up. Hopefully it lessens the chance, and lessens the chance of screwing up more once you're on a downward track. But we also may disagree about some of the other issues as well. Considering her healthy lead in 45 of 50 states, it's hard to get too harsh about a bit of bad news in Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa we've pointed out has changed fairly little over the year - perhaps she's 2% less than what she was on average. New Hampshire is much more of a sudden drop.
Regarding the famous Iraq vote, she laid out her reasoning pretty well, she didn't back off it like Edwards, and Obama has pretty well said if he'ed been in the Senate he'd likely have done the same. I personally don't have so much problem with that vote, since it was well before inspectors went back in, well before the Security council including Syria unanimously approved something fairly similar (didn't they read their own NIE's?), and 6 months before the actual war started. Hussein had jerked our chain for a decade, and it wasn't until Blix was in for a few months and pushed Hussein to the edge that we actually started confirming what we needed to.
Obama has skipped out on some controversial votes in his Senate days, and his friendship/mentoring with Lieberman to me is as bad as any of Hillary's votes. (Except her posing with Lieberman on more culture wars/protect-our-children crap a week or so ago. And Bill was even worse than Obama in helping out Lieberman over Lamont.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 5:00 PM:But if you look at how their experience informs their judgment, I think that Obama stands out compared to Clinton as he does when you look at a host of other traits.
Another canard being peddled that cannot be backed up by any available data. Obama's so-called judgment on the war vote is immaterial because he was in no position to vote for or against it. But even if we grant him "good judgment" in that his purported "opposition" to the war was genuine, how then would you reconcile his repeated votes in favor of giving Bush blank checks that enabled him to perpetuate his Misadventures in Mesopotamia? Wouldn't consistency dictate that if Obama had truly "opposed" the war, he would have gone to the US Senate and expressed this "opposition" by voting against the blank checks when he had the opportunity to do so substantively? Where is your so-called evidence of superior judgment? He claimed that he'd opposed but that was irrelevant because he could do nothing about it, but then when he could do something about it, he voted repeatedly to perpetuate the war.
That is when he was in no position to vote initially. Let's see what he did when he was in position to vote on the Kyl-Lieberma Iran bill, which he later said that he'd "opposed." Obama never took to the Senate floor to register his opposition to this bill; the bill had come up in a debate on the evening following the voe on it, but he said nothing about his so-called "opposition" to the bill; in fact, a few months earlier, he had co-sponsored a bill that had contained what most critics of the K-L bill had considered its most offensive provision: the designation of the Iran Revolution Guards as a terrorist organization. Those are the facts. When the K-L bill came up for a vote in the Senate, Clinton showed up and voted her conscience despite the potential for political damage. Meanwhile, Obama, well, he went AWOL! He did not bother to show up for the vote, and then, in an ultimate act of chutzpah, he turned around and slammed Hillary over how she'd voted! Got that? He ducked the vote, but turned around and slammed someone who had the courage to show up and vote...
Now I ask you: Where is Obama's purported political courage or evidence of his so-called "good judgment" that you keep talking about? Obama seems to me to be a political coward and opportunist, and facts speak loudly for themselves.
robert ethan wrote on December 16, 2007 5:09 PM:The tenor of the Obama supporters sounds a lot like the Deanies from 2004. I suspect a lot of them are former Deanies riding a new bandwagon.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 5:11 PM:Desider,
When did Obama "pretty well" say he likely would have voted for the Iraq resolution?
As far as I know, Obama has never said he would have voted for the resolution, and the most conciliatory thing he has said was in 2004, during the middle of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He noted then during a NYT interview, "But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Of course, that was over a year before Senator Graham revealed that the reason he opposed the Iraq resolution was the caveats available in the full NIE. And it only became clear earlier this year how few Senators actually did read the full NIE, despite Graham's urging. Those not reading the full NIE included Kerry and Edwards (and also Clinton and Dodd).
So, I think Obama was likely being too generous back in 2004. But at that point, he didn't know all this about the intelligence available to the Senators at the time, nor about the failure of many Senators to read that available intelligence.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 5:33 PM:robert ethan,
I suspect today's Obama supporters also sound a lot like the Bill Clinton's supporters back in 1992. Meanwhile, I also suspect Hillary Clinton's supporters today sound a lot like the Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry supporters over the years.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 5:40 PM:I have said this repeatedly and, so far, I have been proved right: The war votes (AUMF, K-L) won't be a factor in this election (at in the Dem primaries) because people do not associate them with so-called "good judgment" or lack thereof. If a vote against the AUMF and K-L bills is evidence of "good judgment" then what do you make of the "good judgment" of Sens. Levin and Durbin (an Obama supporter), who both had voted AGAINST the AUMF bill but FOR the K-L bill? Do you how simple-minded it is to assess a Senator's "good judgment" on the basis of a vote or two. Most people are smarter than that. In fact, those who have made a big issue of these war votes are generally left-wingers who are usually out of touch with the rest of America, but are usually so "passionate" and vocal that the MSM thinks that it is the way America feels. Well, America does not feel that "passionate" about those war votes, just I have been saying for almost a year. That is the view from the center of the American political divide where most Americans live!
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 5:47 PM:I suspect today's Obama supporters also sound a lot like the Bill Clinton's supporters back in 1992. Meanwhile, I also suspect Hillary Clinton's supporters today sound a lot like the Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry supporters over the years.
Huh? Seems to me that is just self-serving...Obama supporters sound like the supporters of the only Dem in ~30 years to win the White House, whereas the supporters of that lone successful Dem's wife sound like all the Dem candidates who did not make it to the White House? Hmmmm.....
Typical non-sequitur....
Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 5:48 PM:dchungsu, if your argument is that it didn't mean anything for Obama to speak out against the war before he was in the Senate because it didn't take courage then your implication is that Hillary vote for the war because she lacked courage. I don't think that's the case you want to be making. The best thing for Hillary to have done would have been to swallow her pride and admit she was wrong. We've had enough of one politician that's too proud even for good judgment in hindsight. It's likely too late for Hillary to correct that mistake, however.
Also, I am not assessing her judgment on the basis of just any old votes. Hillary herself said that the AUMF was "the most difficult decision she's ever made", though she later said it was a vote "for diplomacy" which should have been easy. In any case, when you're president you can't just not read the intelligence and rush into war then dismiss it as unimportant because it's only "one or two" decisions. That doesn't fly.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 6:06 PM:Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 5:48 PM:dchungsu, if your argument is that it didn't mean anything for Obama to speak out against the war before he was in the Senate because it didn't take courage then your implication is that Hillary vote for the war because she lacked courage.
You would need to elaborate because I do not see how one follows from the other. My point was that Obama was in no position to vote for or against the AUMF bill (he had very little to lose), so therefore, what he could've done is immaterial. Hillary's reasons for voting the way she did are in the congressional records. I found her reasoning compelling, as did 70% of Dem Senators and more than ~60% of the country back then! Hillary's vote appears to have been a mistake only in retrospect because Bush fucked up the conduct of the war. Had he done things right, he would have claimed all the credit and no one would be questioning Hillary's judgment, much less clamoring that she be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for it...
A flip of coin...
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:11 PM:dcshungu,
Well, every candidate on the losers list was an establishment pick, one sold to the party as a competent, hard-working, and safe pick. Bill Clinton, the only person on the winners list, was the self-styled "Man from Hope", and he won over the party with his personal appeal and inspirational rhetoric.
Of course, it is true that the fact that Hillary Clinton has the most in common with the losers, and other candidates (not just Obama, but arguably Edwards and perhaps Richardson and Biden as well) have the most in common with the lone winner, makes Hillary Clinton look like a particularly risky, not a particularly safe, pick. But in that sense your issue is with history, not me.
DTM wrote: I suspect today's Obama supporters also sound a lot like the Bill Clinton's supporters back in 1992. Meanwhile, I also suspect Hillary Clinton's supporters today sound a lot like the Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry supporters over the years.Given the demographics the Clinton supporters today sound more like the Kennedy, Johnson and Carter supporters over the years. The Obama supporters probably sound a lot more like Nader and Dean supporters. pacc wrote on December 16, 2007 6:17 PM:
Now that the O-Bomb-A squirt in the polls is petering out, the race is settling out to what it always was.
Senator Clinton is thick in the race with timely high profile endorsements, wads of cash to get her message out, and the top ground game in Iowa.
While she just might pull a victory out of Iowa, unlike O-Bomb-A, Senator Clinton doesn't need to win.
Still, it would be satisfying to squash little weanie Barry and eliminate him sooner than later. He and his supporters are so revolting it would be nice for them to be gone.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:19 PM:dcshungu at 6:06,
But of course Obama's reasoning is also on the record. And his reasoning included the fact that the invasion would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences." So I don't think it helps to argue that those who supported the Iraq war at the time were betting American blood and treasure (and standing and security) on "a flip of coin". Rather, that was precisely why people like Obama opposed the war.
Incidentally, 29 of 50 Democratic Senators voted for the Iraq resolution. That is 58%, not 70%.
Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 6:22 PM:Well, I think that we're in agreement that it would have been better if Obama had been in the Senate, but I don't see how it follows from that that he doesn't deserve credit for his good judgment. I took your argument to be backed up by some kind of subordinate conditional like this: If he had been in the Senate then he would have supported it. Also, Bush did fuck up the conduct of the war, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea otherwise. Finally, I did not find Hillary's reasoning compelling at the time but I hardly find that to be relevant. We have the benefit of hindsight now and if anyone goes back and looks at what Obama and others were saying at the time it is quite clear that they had better judgment. But, as you point out, Hillary was basing her decision more on what the majority of people thought than on what the NIE and other sources said.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:23 PM:DemAC,
I'm not quite sure what you mean about demographics--care to provide details?
I also notice you skipped over 1984 to 2000 (Nader being an irrelevant reference, since Nader did not run in the Democratic primaries in 2000). One would think those years would be a little more informative, particularly given the realignment of the South.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 6:24 PM:The best thing for Hillary to have done would have been to swallow her pride and admit she was wrong. We've had enough of one politician that's too proud even for good judgment in hindsight. It's likely too late for Hillary to correct that mistake, however.
For me the sorriest spectacle of this election has been John Edwards and his serial "apologies", after having co-sponsored and voted for the AUMF bill. Do you feel better today about Edwards because he'd issued those apologies? Well, I do not care and no one but the netroots seemed to even notice. Do you want to know something? Of all the Dem senators who'd voted for the AUMF bill, the most "contrite" of the bunch have been John Kerry and John Edwards... a coupe of losers. Biden might have said something like what Hillary has said but does not usually dwell on it: I would do things differently if I had to do them over. For me that is good enough. Every decision has consequences and we must live with them. Apologies won't change what'd happened. Hillary messed up health care reform in 1993, learned from that fiasco and has now proposed a plan that most have lauded. That is how you deal with failures. And I am satisfied that she would have the flexibility to effect a course correction if things are not working. That is intelligence and there is no comparison with Bush, who confuses pig-headedness with "resolve."
Serial apologies are meaningless and I am happy that Hillary did not cave in to the netroots and turn into a serial apologizer. It would have been pathetic.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 6:29 PM:DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:11 PM:dcshungu,
Well, every candidate on the losers list was an establishment pick, one sold to the party as a competent, hard-working, and safe pick. Bill Clinton, the only person on the winners list, was the self-styled "Man from Hope", and he won over the party with his personal appeal and inspirational rhetoric.
Bill Clinton was NOT an insurgent candidate. Obama is and that makes him more like Dean than Bill Clinton...And I suspect that history would prove the comparison to have been an apt one...
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 6:31 PM:DTM,
Oh dear – well I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. You go first as you started it. Please, provide detailed info that supports “today's Obama supporters also sound a lot like the Bill Clinton's supporters back in 1992. Meanwhile, I also suspect Hillary Clinton's supporters today sound a lot like the Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry supporters over the years.”
Given the demographics the Clinton supporters today sound more like the Kennedy, Johnson and Carter supporters over the years. The Obama supporters probably sound a lot more like Nader and Dean supporters.
The nastier ones sure enough do recall some of the ruder, least informed and most vocal Deaniacs, whom I still maintain are given way too little credit for their role in speed and intensity of the good doctor's implosion. They just left a lot of folks rooting for that guy to fail.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:38 PM:Anonymous at 6:29,
What is your definition of an "insurgent candidate"?
It is true that things were made easier for Bill Clinton in 1992 by the fact that many of the top people in the party decided not to run (at the time Bush looked unbeatable to many). But Clinton certainly began as a relative unknown nationally, and he started with very low poll numbers, and of course he lost in both Iowa and NH before building the support he needed to win the nomination. So, Bill Clinton certainly was nothing close to the same sort of establishment pick as Hillary Clinton was in this election.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 6:41 PM:DemAC,
Actually, robert ethan "started" the exchange in question. And I have already explained why I suspect Clinton's supporters today sound like those supporters in the past: she is making the same sort of arguments for her candidacy. But I freely admit I don't have a bunch of old comments by those supporters lying around ready to cite for you.
Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 6:44 PM:dchungsu, I mentioned admitting she was wrong, not apologizing. She undermines her credibility when she says things like that she was "voting for diplomacy".
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 6:44 PM:Well, I think that we're in agreement that it would have been better if Obama had been in the Senate, but I don't see how it follows from that that he doesn't deserve credit for his good judgment. I took your argument to be backed up by some kind of subordinate conditional like this: If he had been in the Senate then he would have supported it. Also, Bush did fuck up the conduct of the war, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea otherwise. Finally, I did not find Hillary's reasoning compelling at the time but I hardly find that to be relevant.
There you have it: Precisely why the war vote is a simplistic metric for "good judgment". To many "what ifs."
Obama was not in the Senate but claims that he had "opposed" the war. However, when he gets to the Senate his votes on the war funding are suspiciously IDENTICAL to Clinton's...Hmmmm.
Now, you say: just because Bush fucked up does not mean that Hillary's vote was not mistake. No, but surely, if he had succeeded do you think anyone would be calling it a mistake today?
Levin and Durbin votes against the AUMF but for the K-L bill; which was "good judgment" and which was not and why?
Hillary's reasoning prior to the war was relevant because her vote had consequences, Obama's did not.
I am out because we'll keep going around and around. I am with most of the country on this one: It is a non-issue that will not determine the Dem nominee.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 6:49 PM:DTM,
I don’t particularly remember Mondale, Dukakis nor Gore having their base among blue collar women, on a platform of universalism; universal health care, universal pre-kindergarten etc. But if you say so...
By the way, to the extent the 1992 race had an establishment pick, it was Bob Kerrey. But Kerrey ran a lackluster campaign and simply wasn't as exciting as Bill Clinton.
Iowa wasn't really contested because of Harkin, but notably Kerrey finished fourth behind Tsongas and Clinton. Kerrey did make his stand in NH, but again finished a weak third behind Tsongas and Clinton (Harkin was fourth). So in a sense Clinton did beat the national favorite (Kerrey) in Iowa and NH, even while losing to local favorites Harkin and Tsongas.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 7:03 PM:Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 6:44 PM:dchungsu, I mentioned admitting she was wrong, not apologizing. She undermines her credibility when she says things like that she was "voting for diplomacy".
Everything we know supports her view that she was voting for diplomacy. After Powell was dispatched to the UN to make the case and failed, Bush still decided to go to war anyway...
You undermine your credibility, I think, by thinking that Hillary actually preferred war over any other solution, despite her having clearly stated that she preferred that we bring as many other countries onboard as possible. You have no evidence other than your belief that she did not mean what she had said on the Senate floor. You have no evidence for you skepticism at all.
DTM:
Insurgent candidacy is defined as "Howard Dean." He rose in the polls against the establishment candidates, cheered on by the anti-war left, before a single vote had been cast. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, did not distinguish himself at all until after the early states. He lost badly in IA against a native son, and came second in NH, calling himself the "comeback kid" to great effect but he was essentially a nobody up to that point. In fact, he was still battling allegations of womanizing at that point in the campaign.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 7:03 PM:DemAC,
First, you are the one who brought up demographics, not me. Also, your introduction of specific policies is entirely new, and I am not sure how it is relevant.
Second--those demographics are not as implausible as you seem to think. Again, I don't have demographic data of the sort you are describing for past primaries, and I am waiting to see if you do. But I do have an exit poll for the 2000 general election, and it turns out Gore beat Bush by 11 points among women and by 28 points among union members.
Anyway, I will now go back to waiting for the demographic data you were using.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 7:05 PM:Bob Kerrey who, btw, endorsed Hillary Clinton today hailing her as a fellow warrior. Said Kerrey: “She has been standing up to the extreme wing of the Republican party for 15 years while they tried to tear her down, and you know what? She’s still standing”.
DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 7:08 PM:DTM,
Don’t hold your breath. Like you I ad libed, in my case the point of departure was that Hillary Clinton polls substantially better among voters 65+ than does Obama.
Anonymous at 7:03,
I guess I don't understand your terminology or your point. The fact that Dean rose to the top of the polls before Iowa makes him more of an "insurgent"? The fact that Bill Clinton started as an unknown and only rose in the polls and won the nomination after Iowa and New Hampshire makes him less of an "insurgent"?
Anyway, I think what you are now trying to suggest is that Dean is defined by being the favorite of the "anti-war left". In that case, I am not sure Obama is the right analog in 2008, or even that there is a real analog to Dean in 2008.
On the one hand, it is true that Obama has been consistently opposed to the Iraq War. On the other hand, Edwards has become a harsh critic of the war as well (and I get the sense he has as much or more support among the "left" as Obama on other issues), and Dodd and Richardson have staked out particular policy positions that have appealed to this group of voters.
So I don't think the "anti-war left" has rallied behind a particular candidate this time around. And as for Obama in particular, I think it is worth remembering that his support in NH is high among independents, but his support in SC is also high among black voters. In that sense, Obama just has an unusually broad base of support, and it is hard to analogize his positionining to anything that has come before in the recent past--again with the arguable exception of Bill Clinton in 1992.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 7:37 PM:DemAC,
On Kerrey's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, that of course helps make my point, just as her prior endorsement by Mondale did: Clinton is another in a long line of establishment picks going back to 1984. It just happens that the only nominee not in that line was Bill Clinton in 1992, and he was also the only winner in that time.
By the way, I am completely confused now about what you were trying to say about demographics, but it sounds like we should just leave that issue behind.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 7:55 PM:From what I've seen, Obama tends to do well among the youngest voters, taking something around a 40% share of Democrats under 35. Obama voters tend to be affluent, college educated to the BA/BS level and from primarily urban/suburban areas. People over 45, working class and exurbanites tend to go more heavily for Clinton. Her most lopsided shares are among voters over 55 and married women. People between 35 and 45 and holders of advanced degrees tend to split more evenly.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 8:09 PM:It's also been my personal observation that Obama has the starry-eyed idealist vote pretty well sewed up. Clinton people tend to be more pragmatic. I like both Clinton and Obama for different reasons but I definitely find Clinton supporters the easier of the two groups to get along with. Virtually none of them think Hillary Clinton is god. That's always a good start.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 8:12 PM:Anyway, I think what you are now trying to suggest is that Dean is defined by being the favorite of the "anti-war left". In that case, I am not sure Obama is the right analog in 2008, or even that there is a real analog to Dean in 2008.
Let's not get bogged down on semantics. "Anti-war left" was then; now it is Obama being cheered on by those who see him as the knight in shining armor who is going to "change" the ways of Washington. Different rationale, same effect. There are NO similarities between Bill Clinton's campaign and Obama's for reasons that I do not wish to repeat. Obama's is an insurgent candidacy against the establishment. He is being cheered on by those who view him and the "agent of change" in a manner analogous to that which had propelled Dean to the top early on by anti-war left.
Similarities between Obama's and Dean's candidacies abound, and they won't stop at those that now exist. Obama too, will come up short (athough, I doubt that he would be undone by a "scream".)
I cannot make it clearer than that.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 8:15 PM:CalD,
Do you have links?
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 8:19 PM:DTM: You know where to find poll data as well as I do.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 8:27 PM:dcshungu,
I am fine with not getting bogged down in semantics, but you are not giving us substance either. At least not accurate substance--Bill Clinton also ran as an "agent of change" in 1992, and of course he had spent exactly zero years as a Washington official.
But I will grant you this: starting in 1984, establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton have almost always won the Democratic nomination, again with the lone exception of Bill Clinton in 1992 (and as noted, he benefited from the top establishment people staying out of the race). So it won't be surprising from a historical perspective if Hillary Clinton does in fact win the nomination.
But of course as I previously noted, since 1984 those establishment nominees have all lost the general election. So it also won't be surprising from a historical perspective if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and then loses the general election.
Of course, one might hope that this time will be a departure from the recent pattern, as in 1992. At least if one wants the Democrats to actually win.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 8:29 PM:CalD,
And usually when I make a claim about polls I am happy to supply the links in question if asked.
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 8:56 PM:DTM:
They've all run as "agents of change" or "outsiders." The question is: Where was Bill at this point in 1992, where was Dean in 2004, and where is Obama now? Like Dean, Obama is on the move, whereas Clinton had not got any traction and was "threatening" no one.
I will take your straddling as a concession and move on...
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 8:58 PM:DTM: I have provided exactly as many references as you provided to back up your assertions earlier.
Here's a link for you though: www.pollster.com
Just go there, a state or national polls page and start clicking the links for individual polls. Many provide cross-tabs of one kind or another. Look at enough of them and you will start to get a feel for who's supporting who. Oh, and welcome to the information age. (You used to really have to jump through hoops to find this kind of stuff.)
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 9:22 PM:dcshungu,
At this point in 2004, Dean had been in the lead in the polls for quite a while. But Kerry and Edwards were beginning to close on Dean (and Gephardt) in Iowa.
That doesn't really fit with Obama's polling history or current trends (neither in Iowa nor nationally). It isn't too far off from the position someone else finds herself in, however.
But this appears to be yet another different theory of how Obama is supposed to be more like Dean in 2004 than Bill Clinton in 1992. Generally, I honestly don't know what claim you are trying to argue for anymore.
CalD,
Again, I am usually happy to provide links for any claim that I make about polls. Just point me to the claim in question, and I will try to do so.
By the way, even in the information age, it is quite useful for people to cite their sources. Indeed, that is all the more important precisely because there are so many different possible sources a person could be using these days. But I take it you are refusing to do so, so I guess that is that.
Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 9:54 PM:colonpowwow wrote on December 16, 2007 1:05 PM:
Here's all you need to know. When it counts, Hillary voted 95%-plus on progrssive, liberal issues in her nearly 8 years in the Senate as rated by the ADA. This ties her with Barack Obama who only has 2 years of a voting record to asses (when he bothers showing up to vote), and John Edwards's 78% vote rating on progressive issues.
Here is all I need to know. Hillary has not yet fired Mark Penn.
Obama is a better judge of people and character. He will choose a better cabinet and better advisers than Hillary will. Hillary is dealing with too many low-lifes already. It is likely to get worse.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 10:01 PM:DTM: Fine. Don't go educate yourself.
DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 10:18 PM:CalD,
If by "educate yourself" you mean "read the commentary available at pollster," that is something I already do.
However, if you instead mean, "try to guess what sources CalD was using, if in fact CalD was using any sources at all, and then go find those sources," then yes, sadly I will remain "uneducated" on that particular subject.
CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 10:50 PM:DTM: If you routinely spent time reading analysis of primary polls perusing their cross-tabs then you would know what I'm talking about -- the preponderance of polling done this year has been pretty uniform int that respect.
TSP wrote on December 16, 2007 11:04 PM:Did Obama show leadership in opposing the Iraq war?
"Sunday :: Dec 16, 2007
Sen. Obama's☼ Great Sense of Humor on Iraq
by eriposte
Senator Obama had the good judgment to oppose the Iraq war in 2002. However, as I mentioned before, even before he got into the U.S. Senate he behaved in ways that politicians do when they are seeking a high national office under a political environment not that conducive to expressing progressive positions. For instance, in July 2004 he said on one occasion that he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the 2002 Iraq resolution if he had been in the U.S. Senate at the time and that his position on Iraq was not that different from George Bush's position. Once he got into the U.S. Senate, he voted virtually in lock-step with Sen. Clinton. As it turns out, those weren't the only occasions during which, he, um, continued his Principled Opposition to the Iraq WarTM, unlike the always triangulating Sen. Clinton.
For example, here is the Black Agenda Report (via Cognitive Dissonance, emphasis mine):
When Barack Obama was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2003 opposition to the war in Iraq was extremely popular in African American communities and among the progressive voters he needed in order to win. Brother Obama was on the case, doing what he had to do to sew up that vote early, showing up at local antiwar meetings and rallies, and making speeches like the one opposing "a dumb war" which is now trotted out as evidence of his fervent and prescient antiwar stand.
Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003, and by late May declared "mission accomplished" and victory in "the battle of Iraq" from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. With the president riding high in national polls, this reporter checked Obama's campaign web site and noted that all the evidence of and references to candidate Obama's prior opposition to the invasion of Iraq had been deleted. The visionary Barack Obama appeared to be leaning rightward with the prevailing wind, distancing himself from his prior opposition to the war.
After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its "100 to Watch" that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do --- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire.
Facing the possible erosion of his base among progressive Democrats in Illinois, Obama contacted us. We printed his response in Black Commentator's June 19 issue and queried the candidate on three "bright line" issues that clearly distinguish between corporate-funded DLC Democrats and authentic progressives. We concluded the dialog by printing Obama's response on June 26, 2003. For the convenience of our readers in 2007, all three of these articles can be found here.
Here is how Sen. Obama responded on the website issue (he had his anti-war speech restored to his website and said):
The only reason that my original anti-war speech was removed from my website was a judgment that the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips.
Hilarious! Once again, his staff got thrown under the bus - and it was all about "fresh news clips"! Hey, at least - even though this was a laughably unbelievable explanation - it's original, and shall we say, "Presidential"! BAR continues:
Four years after senatorial candidate Barack Obama had to be summoned back into open opposition to the war in Iraq, scant weeks after his admission that he would not bring the troops home before the end of 2013, and in the face of dozens of public statements between 2003 and the present advocating an extra hundred thousand bodies to the Army and Marines, a higher Pentagon budget than even Bush is asking for, and the bombing of Iran and Pakistan, history has been rewritten to make Obama an early, consistent and principled voice for peace. This history is written, of course, by the same media that sold us the lies which enabled the war to begin with.
Hey guys, didn't you know Saint ObamaTM believes war is peace?"
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011525.php
dcshungu wrote on December 16, 2007 11:16 PM:But this appears to be yet another different theory of how Obama is supposed to be more like Dean in 2004 than Bill Clinton in 1992. Generally, I honestly don't know what claim you are trying to argue for anymore.
Nice try. You're the one who'd made the claims: Obama is like Bill, etc... At least there now seems to be enough confusion to where you're not even sure why you'd made the tenuous analogy.
Anyone who's followed these campaigns would tell you that Obama's "insurgent campaign" (as that phrase is usually defined) is a lot like Dean's (I concede that the analogy would not fit perfectly, which it seems you'd like for it to); step back a bit and you'll see that Obama's and Dean's moves to the top have nearly the same underlying dynamics...
Just remember what started this and why you were challenged to back it up, and you'll be fine...but the bottom line is that there are no similarities between Bill's 1992 campaign and Obama's. Any assertions to this are tenuous and, worse, self-serving because it is clear why you'd said it in first place: If we accept that Obama is like Clinton,then just like Clinton, he'd go on to win the GE, which the other "establishment" candidates have not managed to do in 30 years. Unfortunately for you, Obama is no Bill. He would be the weakest GE candidate that the Dems could field in the GE: untested, unvetted, inexperienced and a black man in 200 America.
Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 6:44 AM:colonpowwow spins: "Here's all you need to know. When it counts, Hillary voted 95%-plus on progrssive, liberal issues in her nearly 8 years in the Senate as rated by the ADA."
Sorry Colon, that may be all you need to know. ALL I need to know is that Hillary Clinton voted to give George W. Bush, the most incompetent president in American history, the authority to invade Iraq and start a needless war that has ended or damaged the lives of MILLIONS and wasted TRILLIONS of dollars. Then, nowing now what she should have known then, Hillary Clinton voted to give George Bush cover to attack Iran.
Hillary Clinton has terrible advisors and absolutely HORRIBLE judgment. Everything she does is calcuated for her own political gain and financial benefit. We simply cannot trust this woman with the future of the nation and world leadership. She lacks character, integrity and good judgment. I could never vote for Hillary.
Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 6:58 AM:DemAC quotes Bob Kerry as saying "[Hillary] has been standing up to the extreme wing of the Republican party for 15 years while they tried to tear her down, and you know what? She’s still standing”.
Once again the image of Hillary as the courageous victim. What an unappealing portrait for someone who wants to lead the nation and the world. Hillary and Bill gave as good as they got in their mean fights. I remember Hillary going on national television and claiming that Bill was innocent and Monica was the result of the "vast right wing conspriacy." Actually, Monica was the result of Bill's loose morals and reckless behavior, and Hillary's decision over many years to accept that behavior in exchange for celebrity and promimity to power. That was a major, unwarranted, dishonest attack, and the Clintons' enemies came back full force.
Hillary is far more than "still standing." She and Bill are now mega-millionaires, who have calculated, manipulated, and sold influence in an effort to return to power. If Hillary is such a champion against the far right, why are she and Bill so cozy with Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Poppy Bush? Hillary is an opportunist. She stands for nothing but Hillary, and for Bill as long as he is useful. She would divorce Bill in a heartbeat and register officially as a Republican if Mark Penn's polls told her it would make her president.
Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 7:16 AM:dcshungu said: "Do you [know] how simple-minded it is to assess a Senator's 'good judgment' on the basis of a vote or two."
It seems far more "simple-minded" to characterize the Iraq and Iran issues as just "a vote or two."
The Iraq vote enabled a incompetent, corporate-controlled president to start an unjustified war. Hillary Clinton will never face a more signfiicant decision, and she blew it. She did not read the classified intelligence report that convinced many of her colleauges to vote against giving Bush the authority to attack, and she waged American and Iraqi lives, more than a trillion dollars, and American international prestige and moral leadership, on a calculation that her vote would make her a stronger presidential CANDIDATE (not a stronger president).
In the Iraq vote we saw exactly how Hillary Clinton would analyze and lead, and she FAILED THE TEST. In the Iran vote, we saw that, just like Bush, she does not learn from her mistakes.
Two votes? Far more than that and enough to disqualify her as a viable candidate for president. PERIOD>
DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 7:44 AM:CalD,
Well, that is a large part of why I am trying to get you to identify exactly which polls you are relying on. There has been a lot of polling over the past year, and from what I have seen the cross-tabs are not in fact uniform between all those polls over time. There have been differences, for example, between the early states and national polls, and differences in the early states over time. But again, if you refuse to be specific, then I will just move on.
DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 8:02 AM:dcshungu,
Nothing I wrote above claimed explicitly or implicitly that Obama has had the exact same polling history in 2008 as Bill Clinton had in 1992. Rather, my point was entirely about the substance of their campaigns, meaning the sorts of themes and attributes they used to make the argument for their candidacy.
And frankly, I honestly do not get your point about the polling history. Yes, Obama is surging in the polls before Iowa, whereas Bill Clinton surged in the polls at a slightly later point (after his NH "comeback"). But what exactly is that distinction supposed to tell us? Do you really think that distinction points to a fundamental difference in their campaigns? Don't you think it might have more to do with, say, the fact that Bill Clinton in 1992 was dealing with local favorites Harkin and Tsongas in Iowa and NH respectively? Again, I would note that Bill Clinton did in fact beat the establishment favorite, Bob Kerrey, in Iowa and NH.
As a final note, and as I have pointed out before, Hillary Clinton actually has considerably less electoral experience than Obama, and I think that lack of experience is showing. But the good news is that if nothing else she is obviously willing to "vet" Obama as fully as possible, right back to his kindergarten days. Similarly, while Obama's race has not exactly been lost on people before this point, the fact that people like you are trying but failing to make Obama's race the deciding issue probably only helps his candidacy.
DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 8:05 AM:As always, I am intrigued by claims such as that Hillary Clinton is "still standing". What exactly does that mean? What is the alternative possibility?
Notably, last I saw people like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry were perfectly capable of standing. So the issue at hand is not their ongoing ability to stand. The issue is that none of them ended up being President of the United States.
DemAC wrote on December 17, 2007 8:27 AM:DTM wrote: As always, I am intrigued by claims such as that Hillary Clinton is "still standing". What exactly does that mean? What is the alternative possibility?Why don’t you write Bob Kerrey and ask him what he meant? Be sure to tell us what he said.
Anonymous wrote: Hillary is an opportunist. She stands for nothing but Hillary, and for Bill as long as he is useful. She would divorce Bill in a heartbeat and register officially as a Republican if Mark Penn's polls told her it would make her president.It’s nice to see such knowledgeable and classy commentary raise the intellectual level of the debate. You must be truly proud of your contribution to the conversation. By all means, don’t stop! You’re a funny guy. :-) DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 8:42 AM:
DemAC,
Um, somewhat obviously I was referring to that comment from Kerrey, which was already being discussed above (see Anonymous at 6:58). In general, I know this phrase is used in the official Clinton campaign talking points. What I don't know is what it is actually supposed to mean.
DTM,
You know, most adults are able to handle abstract language and linguistic symbolism and don’t require everything to be spelled out for them in concrete detail. But since you profess to don’t know what it mean, why don’t you write and ask for example Bob Kerrey what he meant when he used this, to you, incredibly confusing semantics of “[she is] still standing”. He’s an educator – go educate yourself.
DemAC,
Oh, I understand what they are trying to achieve. I also understand that it is in their interest to keep this particular talking point as vague as possible (because being any more explicit might cause more people to question what they are claiming).
So while I find your suggestion of trying to become pen pals with Bob Kerrey interesting, I don't hold out much hope that he has been authorized to clarify this talking point for interested members of the public.
DonnaG wrote on December 17, 2007 10:17 AM:DTM,
when I hear that 'still standing' meme, I think of one of those life-sized balloon figures with a pile of ballast sand in the bottom. Knock it down, it rights itself, perhaps deflating and leaning a bit more over time.
FWIW, when I hear Hillary speak, I think of one of those stuffed toys programmed to say different messages when the string is pulled or the button is pushed. I notice that the Hillary programmed messages have had to be up-dated depending upon which messages of other candidates are gaining traction and need to be co-opted.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 12:02 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 7:16 AM:dcshungu said: "Do you [know] how simple-minded it is to assess a Senator's 'good judgment' on the basis of a vote or two."
It seems far more "simple-minded" to characterize the Iraq and Iran issues as just "a vote or two."
The Iraq vote enabled a incompetent, corporate-controlled president to start an unjustified war. Hillary Clinton will never face a more signfiicant decision, and she blew it. She did not read the classified intelligence report that convinced many of her colleauges to vote against giving Bush the authority to attack, and she waged American and Iraqi lives, more than a trillion dollars, and American international prestige and moral leadership, on a calculation that her vote would make her a stronger presidential CANDIDATE (not a stronger president).
In the Iraq vote we saw exactly how Hillary Clinton would analyze and lead, and she FAILED THE TEST. In the Iran vote, we saw that, just like Bush, she does not learn from her mistakes.
Two votes? Far more than that and enough to disqualify her as a viable candidate for president. PERIOD>
Enough already about Clinton and the war! In so far as the Iraq war turned out to be disastrous, the vote for AUMF bill was a mistake ex post facto. So now, could you tell us which candidate among the Democrats is blameless on the Iraq war other than Kucinich, who, considering how sanguine you are about this, I hope your supporting? And why are you just applying your litmus test only to Hillary? ~60% of the public and Dem Senators were for the invasion back then, why just pick on Hillary?! Let's check out just the Dem candidates wrt to their positions on the war:
Edwards: co-sponsored the AUMF bill and, of course, voted for it. His subsequent serial apologies just made him look pathetic and opportunistic...
Biden: Voted for it.
Dodd: voted for it.
Obama: State Senator Obama was in no position to vote for or against the war, but when he got to the US Senate, where he could have expressed his purported "opposition" to the war more substantively by voting to cut off funding (like Kucinich did consistently), Obama voted repeatedly to give the GWB, Village Idiot, blank checks to continue his Misadventure in Mesopotamia. Obama's voting record on the war after joining the US Senate is identical to Hillary's. Do you really believe that his expressed "opposition" to the war is credible? No more credible than his excuses for ducking the K-L bill on Iran. It was just political opportunism, since we just learned that when it appeared that the Iraq invasion had succeeded and Bush was celebrating "Mission Accomplished", Obama quickly pulled from his web site the very same video of his speech that he is now peddling as evidence of his "opposition" to the war. There is NO credible evidence whatsoever that Obama was ever a true opponent of the Iraq war. Considering how he zigzagged on the Iran bill before ultimately ducking it, how credible is his claim that he'd "opposed" the Iraq war from the git-go? You might be naive enough to believe that, most people are not!
Now tell us, on the basis of your preceding screed about the importance of the AUMF in determining a candidate's "good judgment", which Dem candidate other than Kucinich do you think is qualified to be POTUS?
The American people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for: They have decided, rightly, that they won't make that vote an issue in this election, and there is no evidence that that would change any time soon. So, rant all you want, it is water under the bridge...
Michael A wrote on December 17, 2007 12:26 PM:Yep, dc they are alot smarter than the clinton II lovers give them credit for. The war vote will and is clearly an issue for the vast majority of americans, including alot of republicans. Clinton II lovers just want to pretend it will go away, but it won't. She didn't read the NIE and she gave the king a blank check to invade a sovereign country.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis have died. Hundreds of thousands more have been maimed and horribly injured. Women and children have been killed or maimed. Families destroyed. Homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed. It was a horrible, horrible mistake and her vote was for politics. She could care less about people and the impact that it would have on people's lives. And, she doesn't care now. It wasn't a picnic, it was freaking war.
I have a problem with all dems that voted for the war. However, at least some have admitted the mistake, she has not and it will blow-up in her face. She and her lovers can triangulate all you want. The american people will see through it. Bush-lite won't get the nomination, no matter all the triangulation Mr. Bill and her do.
Kefa wrote on December 17, 2007 12:28 PM:What I am waiting to see is what Hardball with Chrissy Matthews has to say about the DMR piece. He was so hyped up on Thurs. because he thought the endorsement was going to someone other then HRC. He was frothing and spitting and slobbering for someone to give him an early scoop. He also never gives any neg. info on Rudi cause he has a big man-crush on Rudi and Rudi is toast. So Hardball should be a ball of laughs for me today.lol.
DonnaG wrote on December 17, 2007 1:04 PM:Check out MSNBC video of David Gregory interviewing Hillary on the Today Show this morning.
Not only did she meet my expectation of not being able to answer spontaneous questions or do other than speak in preprogrammed phrases, she answered almost all questions by referring to the Des Moines Register endorsement. Talk about milking that dry and licking the pail, too.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 1:25 PM:Michael A wrote on December 17, 2007 12:26 PM:Yep, dc they are alot smarter than the clinton II lovers give them credit for. The war vote will and is clearly an issue for the vast majority of americans, including alot of republicans.
Just two softballs for you:
1. Where is you evidence that the war vote is "clearly an issue for the vast majority of Americans"?
2. If it is an "issue", which Dem candidate do you think is blameless in that respect? [hint: read my preceding post this time].
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 1:40 PM:she answered almost all questions by referring to the Des Moines Register endorsement. Talk about milking that dry and licking the pail, too.
Hello!? Why in the world do you think she went on the morning TV blitz in the first place, to repeat material from her stump speech that everyone knows now by heart? I understand that you would have wanted for her to understate the meaning of this huge DMR endorsement, but come on!
I am sensing that the MSM is now starting to get bored with the current "narrative" about how Clinton is imploding, so wait for a new "news" cycle to begin!
Michael A wrote on December 17, 2007 2:03 PM:1. Polls. About 70% of americans are against the war and want our troops out yesterday. She wants to keep us there forever. Sorry, I would say 70% is a majority, and in fact, more and more republicans are against the war.
2. Actually, blameless is a loaded word and probably by design. The least blameless are obama, richardson and kucinich. I put edwards behind dodd and biden on the war issue. I am sure you have read my posts on edwards before. I'm not happy at all about dodd or biden on the vote, but I would rather take them over clinton II. She told people if they are opposed to her war vote, then don't vote for her. Good, I hope people take it to heart and don't.
CalD wrote on December 17, 2007 4:36 PM:...About 70% of americans are against the war and want our troops out yesterday. She wants to keep us there forever...
Well since that obviously is not Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq, who would "she" be in this case?
