Hillary, Obama Pick Up Key Newspaper Endorsements In Iowa

Comments (48)

john mccutchen wrote on December 23, 2007 11:25 AM:

Mrs. Bill!!!
Mo You Go Girl

Once it was about Hillary, but now, of course, it’s about Bill.... Just when I thought I was out, the Clintons pull me back into their conjugal psychodrama....If voting for Obama is a roll of the dice, as Bill suggests, voting for Billary is a sure bet: an endless soap opera.

Greg wrote on December 23, 2007 11:27 AM:

gotta love that. the clintons are to blame for Dowd writing about them again. because this is something she's proven so reluctant to doing in the past...

Michael A wrote on December 23, 2007 11:28 AM:

Thanks for the links gregg and the post. I would never have read broder and would have missed a good piece and your observations are spot on regarding the style comparisons. Broder's piece does actually give you the impression that you were there at the speech and actually is a good piece for once. To be fair, someone should write a piece like that about a clinton speech as well. Thank you.

john mccutchen wrote on December 23, 2007 11:30 AM:

At least she's not writing about "Obambi" any longer is she Greg?

She is vicious ..and she isn't wrong

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 12:06 PM:

Hillary confuses me. Is she a strong, independent woman capable of leading the nation and the world? Is she a constant whining victim of the media, the vast right wing conspiracy, her sexist opponents in both parties? Is she Mrs. Bill Clinton campaigning for his third term? Is she a shill of a candidate, qualified only by family connections and corporate dollars, running to protect the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-serving status quo? Is she a warnmongering hawk who will dig us deeper into Iraq and continue America's aggressive foreign policy to protect multi-national oil interests and employ cronie defense contractors?

Hillary seems to be all of this and even more. Scary!

Coonsey wrote on December 23, 2007 12:11 PM:

It's too bad that those in the 'know' are too 'afraid' to walk away from the Clintons to endorse some other person. They probably fear retribution or being smeared (as they are doing Obama and Edwards) if they DON'T support the Clintons and the Hillary ends up winning.

As with the Bush's - FEAR can create miracle supporters!

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

random wrote on December 23, 2007 12:13 PM:

Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich are brilliant analysts who gave it to Hillary between the eyes. Someone must speak the truth. Finally, we're hearing it.

Hillary's mean-spirited, divisive, dishonest, arrogant, corporate-fueled campaign has one message: she is Mrs. Bill Clinton, long suffering, and the nation owes her the presidency. Anyone who disagrees with or opposes her is an evil, hater and must be destroyed.

Billary should retire, party with their dishonest friends and contributors, enjoy their ill-gotten millions and let the nation move forward... without them.

Kefa wrote on December 23, 2007 12:55 PM:

Broder=reporter
Dowd=hack

It was a shame the reader and the candidates couldn't get equal treatment.

Now to the endorsements both were helpful
I'll speak about the Quad's because it was very good because it hit the BHO backyard.
It's the BHO, or close to his paper, nice shot.

The Face The Nation interview didn't go well today either.

Keith wrote on December 23, 2007 1:07 PM:

Kefa:

All reporters are reporters when we agree with their work. They are hacks when we don't.

What about the interview didn't go well?

hisgirlfriday wrote on December 23, 2007 1:25 PM:

Did you read the QC Times editorial?

One of their reasons for endorsing Hillary is her standing up for "the sanctity of marriage" in spite of Bill humiliating her so thoroughly with his affairs yet their GOP pick was John McCain, who admitted to being a serial philanderer before divorcing his first wife and marrying the one he has now.

So ridiculous.

Desider wrote on December 23, 2007 1:55 PM:

Maureen Dowd is about as "brilliant" and erudite as my pubic hairs. Think of her as Roseanne with half the wit and perceptiveness, twice the visceral vindictiveness and cattiness, and a million times more vapid as to worthwhile subjects for comment. Sad that people mistake her for an analyst.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 23, 2007 2:14 PM:

I have little regard for either Broder or Dowd. I never read either, finding Broder uselessly "balanced" (read obtuse) and Dowd insufferably snarky and myopic. I like Obama a lot and will be voting for him in the primary, but in spite of such endorsements, not because of them.

MonaL wrote on December 23, 2007 3:37 PM:

Decider wrote: "Maureen Dowd is about as "brilliant" and erudite as my pubic hairs."

LOL! Thanks for that!

Greg Delassus wrote: "I have little regard for either Broder or Dowd. I never read either, finding Broder uselessly "balanced" (read obtuse) and Dowd insufferably snarky and myopic."

DITTO!

savvy wrote on December 23, 2007 4:09 PM:

"One of their reasons for endorsing Hillary is her standing up for "the sanctity of marriage" in spite of Bill humiliating her so thoroughly with his affairs yet their GOP pick was John McCain, who admitted to being a serial philanderer before divorcing his first wife and marrying the one he has now.

So ridiculous."

WOW. Now that says it ALL! Incredible.

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 5:17 PM:

Desider, Maureen Dowd is a truth speaker who has brilliant insight.

One thing Hillary, her husband, their mean machine and supporters can't abide is the TRUTH. Scary isn't when someone sees through her lies, disessembling, obfuscation, distortion, pandering, misrepresentation, disinformation, and spin, spin, spin to tell it like it is.

Maureen Dowd described Billary perfectly and now she must be attacked. Too funny.

random wrote on December 23, 2007 5:20 PM:

Hillary standing up for the sanctity of marriage, or protecting her political meal ticket? She would divorce Bill in a heartbeat but she's a nobody without him.

Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 23, 2007 5:25 PM:

random said that Hillary is nobody without Bill.

So true. She is Mrs. Bill Clinton, no more, no less, and she gets the benefit and the downside of that. Hillary is running for Bill's third term. NYT poll reported last week showed that fully half of her support is because of Bill, not because she has merits on her own.

Dowd hit the nail on the head. Bill can win Hillary the presidency or lose it for her. Once gain, she is the little wife totally dependent on her man.

Amber wrote on December 23, 2007 7:33 PM:

Kefa is Bill Clinton's screen name today. You all love Maureen Dowd when she's making funnies about Darth and Junior. As much as might attack over-the-hill Broder and that meanie Maureen Dowd, millions of readers in the non-extreme mainstream (not readers of this blog and definitely not post commentators here) do read them and are influenced by them. However, it's becoming more and more clear, despite Team Hillary's cheerleading, that Hillary will never win.

Desider wrote on December 23, 2007 7:35 PM:

Anonymous 5:17 - LOL.

Maureen Dowd musing about Gore musing about Naomi Wolf musing about earth tones is "TRUTH"? Did you confuse this word with "TRUTHINESS"? Thought so. What's Daily Howler's quote from her? "You mean I should write about welfare reform?" No Maureen, just keep writing celebrity-filled fact-free muse-o-thons. The public will beat a path to your door.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h061500_1.shtml

Regarding "Billary", I think Hillary is doing just fine by herself - more organized and directed and disciplined than Bill is (my guess is that she's a good part of why Bill got elected to so many positions, but knee-jerks don't want to contemplate that one). Anyway, got me chuckling a 2nd time - the Hillary "mean machine". Like wow, guys, where've you been playing, powder puff league? Never seen a brush-back pitch before? You are going to get hammered, aren't you?

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 7:46 PM:

Frank Rich (okay Hillary cheerleaders- attack him!) wrote another compelling column today that further demonstrates why Senator Hillary Clinton will stay a senator.

By FRANK RICH
Published: December 23, 2007
"WE can only imagine what is going on inside John McCain’s head when he contemplates Mike Huckabee. It can’t be pretty. No presidential candidate in either party has more experience in matters of war than the Arizona senator, and yet in a wartime election he is being outpaced by a guy who has zero experience and is proud of it...

For Mrs. Clinton, the failure of “experience” as a selling point was becoming apparent even as her husband continued to push it on Charlie Rose..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23rich.html?ref=opinion

Also, NYT Magazine had a good, wordy article about Billary (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html?ref=politics). I have to admit that I didn't realize that it was Hillary, not Bill, who brought in Dick Morris to his campaign. That makes it all the more telling that he made a powerful case against her recently in his "Why are the Wheels Coming Off the Clinton Bandwagon?"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316905,00.html

What are the Vegas odds on Al Gore coming out for Obama before the Iowa Caucuses?

Desider wrote on December 23, 2007 8:38 PM:

Frank Rich ignores a number of interesting things in the poll. Hillary & Obama are 4 points apart - and both increased their percentage 3 points in the last month (when she was supposed to be tanking). Hillary supporters are more likely to say they will not switch, greatly improved over the last month. Voters opinion of Hillary handling Iraq, having experience, handling the economy, speaking her mind on issues and "best understanding people like you" greatly improved over the previous month. Iraq & Health Care are going down in importance, Economy/Jobs/Education are going up (likely education should help Hillary as well due to her emphasis on it and strong support among women).

In short, it looks like the Clinton campaign has gotten some good movement on key indicators. How this translates in the "change" factor that seems to favor Obama right now, I don't know. But Obama's support is less secure than either Hillary's or Edwards', and Hillary seems to be back to focusing on the basics. Just over 2 weeks to go.

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 23, 2007 8:41 PM:

"Just when I thought I was out, the Clintons pull me back into their conjugal psychodrama."

Anybody who thinks they can wash-off the Clintons, is sadly mistaken. What we need is a national exorcism. To that end, please join the Christmas Offensive. Lets give the Clintons a gift they truly deserve. Help distribute this link: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Michael A wrote on December 23, 2007 9:02 PM:

Comeon desider, that was gross and not funny. You can do better than that.

David wrote on December 23, 2007 9:58 PM:

You are so f-cking pathetic Greg Sargent.

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 9:58 PM:

Desider is dillusional. Hillary is on a huge downhill slide in every state, one by one, where voters focus on a primary. And Obama is gaining in every one of those states. It's a trend, a phenomenon. And Hillary has HUGE negatives, supporters who don't trust her, and 1/2 of her voters think they are re-electing Bill Clinton.
Rich and Dowd tell it like it is on Bill and Hillary. Finally, someone says "Empress Hillary has no clothes."

Bill can make or break her candidacy. She is totally dependent on her husband. Strong independent woman? Right!

Barbara Smith wrote on December 23, 2007 9:59 PM:

You know...Obama deserved what he got and Billary deserved what they got. Enough of the pro Clinton spew already, Greg. It's getting old.

Josh - isn't it time to fire this amateur yet?

Stacie wrote on December 23, 2007 10:00 PM:

Obama is now leading in NH. Hillary has lost a 20 point lead there just as she is everywhere else. Isn't that enough for you, Greg? The train is leaving the station (you, know the authentic one).

Elaine Barrett wrote on December 23, 2007 10:01 PM:

I think Desider may be wearing a blue dress tarnished by Bill Clinton.

random wrote on December 23, 2007 10:04 PM:

Decider spins "Regarding 'Billary'. I think Hillary is doing just fine by herself - more organized and directed and disciplined than Bill"

You have got to be kidding. No one believes Hillary is doing well. She started out with huge leads that now disappear in every primary state voters get a good look at her.

Maybe true that she is more disciplined than Bill, but voters don't like Hillary. Her whole candidacy and election now depends on Bill. Bill Clinton will decide if Hillary is elected. And subconsciously he my not want that competition for his legacy.

Too funny. Mr. Bill Clinton is in control of the fate Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Brian Regan wrote on December 23, 2007 10:05 PM:

So Obama now has racked up impressive pieces by none other than David Broder, Fareed Zakaria and David Brooks. Who, praytell, of any of the major commentators is singing Hillary's praises these days?

Can you say Wiccan?

DTM wrote on December 23, 2007 10:05 PM:

It is somewhat interesting to me that the same trends we have seen in the early states have started showing up in the later states. In fact it seems entirely possible that even if the early states had no effect on the later states, the later states would end up just as close as the early states on their own.

Of course the early states likely will have an affect on the later states, so odds are we will never get the answer to this particular question.

Josh M wrote on December 23, 2007 10:06 PM:

Marc Penn is a heart attack waiting to happen.

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 10:09 PM:

Marc Penn is Hillary's Karl Rove... and HIllary is the new George Bush.

YaFatha wrote on December 23, 2007 11:14 PM:

I ain't votin' for either one of them, no matter who endorses them. It's Edwards for me.

Marilyn Geary wrote on December 23, 2007 11:19 PM:

Edwards is an ambulance chasing smarmy hypocrite. I don't know how he can honestly continue to rail against special interests given the $800K being spent on his behalf by special interest groups in Iowa. He is the guy who has the biggest smile while his hand is in your back pocket. His wife has bigger balls than he does.

Ron Cantrell wrote on December 23, 2007 11:38 PM:

Its obvious that empty-suit Obama supporters don't have anything good to say about their candidate, all they can do is trash Hillary and/or Edwards.

David wrote on December 23, 2007 11:53 PM:

Ron-

Your kidding, right? You must be a Hillary supporter.

Barack Obama is the most authentic leader in this race and that has come onto the scene in decades. He is the only one with the capability to bring our country together at a time of great need. He has run a superb campaign against some fierce opponents and surrounded himself with the best team he possibly could have (a great indicator of the judgment he will bring when choosing a cabinet).

He brings intellect, solid judgement, a high emotional IQ, the ability to communicate and connect with all kinds of people, respect from many different perspectives, a world view that has been consistently right on the major issues of our times, pragmatic policy positions, a major set of balls coupled with a gracious persona, and the ability to lead our country in a new (and much needed direction). How's that?

All that Hillary has is Bill (and I'm not sure that is a good thing these days).

Santa Claus wrote on December 24, 2007 1:03 AM:

Hillary supporters, like Rudy supporters, keep hoping for "miracles." I can't blame you, it is Christmas. Unfortunately you and your candidates will get a lump of coal. Happy Holidays!

Desider wrote on December 24, 2007 9:03 AM:

Ha ha ha, no Hillary didn't start out with huge leads, she started out with a lot of negatives and a lot of unknowns and a lot of name recognition. Much of which means nothing until the actual campaigns. Now we're 2 weeks away from the first contests and 1 1/2 months from Super Tuesday, and she has decent leads around most of the country. No, it hasn't been smooth (which campaigns are?), and she's made some mistakes. Big deal. "Inevitable" was coined in July by Ben Smith in analyizing Mark Penn's response to Obama's claim that Hillary was a weak vulnerable incumbent, not a strong candidate.

But it's funny/sad that no one responded to my actual analysis of the poll Frank Rich picks from. Afraid of ghosts, y'all? Afraid your new inevitable one isn't quite so inevitable? Oprah bounce has come and gone, and now Barack is on his own. Does he need to call her back?

Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 10:06 AM:

Desider, you are way tooooo funny. Hillary's negatives in iowa are more than twice as high as obama or edwards, as it probably is nationwide. That's really bad, but of course you will ignore that fact. Other than iowa, which she was never really that far ahead, her support has collapsed in New Hampshire and South Carolina, it has just gone down in iowa a bit, while obama has gone up quite a bit. She has lost a 20 point lead or more in New Hampshire and South Carolina. That's not good, you can call it what you want, but it's obviously a problem.

Once voters get to know her, they don't like her. Once voters get to know obama, they like him. Is that a problem? Yep, but not according to you. The vast majority of her lead was name recognition and the "inevitable" mantra coming from Penn.

You are wrong on the inevitability bs that eminated from the clinton II campaign. That was Penn's strategy since last year. That's all the clinton II people spewed for months on this site. What did every single campaign worker just make it up? Penn coined the phrase and pushed the theme, and it is blowing up in his face.

On oprah, who gives a sh*t. He's been holding his own and taking it to your candidate on his own. Add in the stupid moves by the experienced and inevitable one and she is going down like the titanic. Start rearranging the deck chairs.

Monica Blewme wrote on December 24, 2007 11:02 AM:

That's so true Michael. What's happening now is all of the campaigns are pouring money into TV ads in each of the key states. As people get to know all of them better, Obama is pulling ahead in Iowa, NH and SC. They can't stand that witch and can't imagine listening to that fake cackle for the next 4 years.

David wrote on December 24, 2007 11:03 AM:

Marc Penn will go down in history as Bob Shrum II!

Susan Collins wrote on December 24, 2007 11:07 AM:

What I want to know is when does Hillary's lesbian lover make an appearance on the campaign trail?

Desider wrote on December 24, 2007 4:05 PM:

Michael,

How about Intrade had Obama above 40 and now has him about 35. Hillary was down to around 56 and is now back up to 63. Cite a source on her negatives and I'll look at them, but overall they've been working hard on cultivating a good, strong national constituency, and it seems like it's paying off.

So again, why did you ignore my analysis of the ABC poll? The poll shows a decrease in Hillary's negatives over the previous month. You have something more convincing?

Brian O wrote on December 24, 2007 9:04 PM:

She is so toast. She has lost 20+ points in NH her supposed safe zone. Face it Desider: no one wants her, particularly as they get to know her.

Desider wrote on December 25, 2007 12:25 PM:

Brian O,
Please explain how her ratings are going up in various areas - say Intrade and the ABC poll at http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1056a1IowaDemocraticCaucus.pdf which directly contradicts you - her support seems more solid than Obama's, and yes, some people seem to like her more as they get to know her, judging from her improvement in that poll over the last month. It basically said: 'Voters opinion of Hillary handling Iraq, having experience, handling the economy, speaking her mind on issues and "best understanding people like you" greatly improved over the previous month."'

Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 25, 2007 1:49 PM:

Look, I'm hardly a fan of Barack Obama, but let's be fair here. The region of western Illinois (Moline, Rock Island & environs) covered by the Quad City Times is mostly populated by white Republicans, and therefore hardly Obama's "backyard" -- unless you're somehow insinuating that the good people of the Chicagoland area regularly neglect to mow their lawns.

yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 2:43 PM:

a column that stands in very stark contrast to the treatment Hillary -- or Billary, rather -- got on the Op ed page of The New York Times today.

you are making the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument. this isn't always the case. just because the media hates the clintons doesn't mean the clintons have our best interests at heart.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)