Yay Hillary! You won the endorsement! Woo hoo!

Is that better csh? :)

This was my post at the Des Moines Register.

As an Edwards supporter I'm very disappointed that the Register did not endorse Edwards but I'm really not surprised. Edwards comments at the Des Moines Register debate about corporate greed probably didn't go over very well in the Gannett boardroom especially when the undecided voters in the CNN & Fox focus group reacted so favorably towards them. I do, however, disagree with the Register's opinion that Edwards would not be able to work with the business community. Most of our businesses are good corporate citizens. The only ones that would have a problem with Edwards are the ones that value profit more than they value their own country.

Is anyone surprised? The endorsement of Clinton is understadable in so far as the D.M.R is a subsidiary of corporate America who has paid for Hillarys loyalty should she become president. Neither Edwards or Obama are accepting campaign donations from corporate lobbyist.  Apparently trust is more important to Edwards and Obama than is corporate endorsements.

Obama is still the man, Madame is using her hubby clouts, een DMR is endorsing it.

Thanks Gregory. You nailed it.Here is prudence and pragmatism.

America needs a leader with determination,experience and strength; a decision maker; a champion for the less fortunate; a fighter for democracy and freedom who is respected across the globe and; a person who is not afraid to tackle issues in a bipartisan manor.

We are faced with a time for action to restore the image and dignity of this great nation. Hillary will work hard to achieve both. She is known and respected. She has shown us that she is capable.

Thanks Demoine Register for endorsing the best candidate.

Just one more "acheivement" for Hillary that she wouldn't have gotten without Bill.

Hey there Bee 4 and Bee after -
You are wrong about the Dope Smoking, Muslim rooted,
inexperienced, and crooked Osama, Obama.- See Article below about his buddy the Mafioso slum Lord Rezco.

Hooray for the Des Moines Register!!  They see the whole truth about honesty and experience and that will influence voters in Iowa.
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REZCO AND OBAMA ASSOCIATION.
DOES THAT EQUATE TO HONESTY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS?
"I DON'T THINK SO"!!!!!!!!

Obama buys Rezko land
Over the years, Rezko, Mahru, their wives and businesses have given more than $50,000 to Obama's campaign funds, records show. And Rezko has helped raise millions more.
Rezko was among the people Obama appointed to serve on his U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, the Sun-Times reported in 2003. The committee raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

As a U.S. senator, Obama grew closer to Rezko.

Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife.

Last year, Rita Rezko sold a strip of that vacant lot to Obama for $104,500 -- a deal Obama later apologized for, acknowledging that people might think he got a favor from Rezko. Obama called the episode "boneheaded'' and a "mistake.''

At the time Obama bought that strip of land, it had been reported that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling involving the administration of Blagojevich, whose campaign also received Rezko's financial support.

Rezko has since been indicted for allegedly demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Blagojevich. Rezko's trial has been postponed while investigators sort through his finances

HOPEFULLY "OSAMA, OBAMA" WILL BE INDICTED RIGHT ALONG WITH REZKO AND WE WILL GET RID OF HIM IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. HE AND RUDY ARE THE WORST OF THE LOT,BOTH OF THEM DISHONEST AND CROOKED!!!

Whom do you trust to end the Iraq war?  Candidate A or B.

Candidate A pledges to end the war but has no plan whatsoever to do so.  Instead, Candidate A intends to study the issue after taking office.  Candidate A relies upon advisers that support the surge and see a U.S. presence in Iraq continuing for a decade. Candidate A refuses to commit to bringing all U.S. troops home by 2013.  

Candidate B says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq reconciliation among the Iraqi factions will not occur.  Candidate B pledges to bring all U.S. troops home within one year of taking office and has offered a realistic plan to achieve this.  Candidate B is being advised by military and diplomatic experts, including former generals, that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate a prompt exit from Iraq.

Candidate A is Hillary Clinton; candidate B is Bill Richardson.

Hillary deserves the indorsement. She is the one who said she would work across the isle, and take care of the middle class, children and education,and cut the taxes on the rich. She has my family's support. We wish you luck

Hillary deserves the indorsement. She is the one who said she would work across the isle, and take care of the middle class, children and education,and cut the taxes on the rich. She has my family's support. We wish you luck

Here is best to-the-point analysis of Obama, who , what, why,How and where.
This is from an blogger who has great depth of understanding and reasoning.
"
Obama has not been attacked once by the main stream media and the vrwc has barely even taken notice of him. He has not been vetted in the cauldron of political attack and destroy. But - if he was chosen to be our nominee…that would surely change.
Without going to Google, just off the top of my head, the following list is comprised of "issues" that I KNOW that talk radio and the right would go after Obama on. There is no doubt that many of these "stories" and "issues" would migrate from the Rush world to the main stream media.
My question is - do you actually think Obama could win in November after 8 months of post primaries investigation, attack and abuse on subjects like these?
It would be so easy for the GOP - here's the initial Obama radio topic rundown:
-the man wants to BAN making guns
-the man wants to BAN selling guns
-the man wants to BAN - YOU owning guns
-he’s against the death penalty
-he wants to let crack heads out of jail - NOW!
-he wants to let illegal aliens on your roads to kill your kids
-he wants to let MORE illegal’s into the USA to lower your wages
-he smoked pot
-he snorted cocaine
-he took extasy
-he was in the same room as 'HEROIN"!
-he wants to raise YOUR taxes by 1 TRILLION bucks!
-he was a college instructor/professor/lefty
-he was/is a HARVARD lawyer
-he IS the Chicago Daley machine
-Rezko!
-the company his wife is on the board of - killed a town
-he goes to a church who's rector hates whites
-his brothers are both in the nation of Islam
-Rezko, Rezko, Rezko!
-his wife got a $200 G raise from a Hospital when he got elected
-his grandma has no electric or water-and he seems ok with that
-his first name is "barack"
-his middle name is "hussein"
-his last name is "obama"
-he doesnt LOOK like you
-he is a liberal democrat
-he is a radical
-wall street financiers like him - why?
- who the heck were his parents, grandparents, his "people"
-as a kid he seems to have told everyone he would 1 day be prez
-he says he's of a "new kind of politics" but his history says NO
-at Harvard he seems to have told everyone that1 day he'd be prez
-Young Hollywood likes him
-will smith says he’s gonna be the NEXT black Prez
-he told his future brother in law on the FIRST day he met him that 1 day he would be prez
-OPRAH!
-how can he understand YOUR lives?
-he sends his kids to fancy schools you couldn’t afford
-the 1st day he was in the senate he had a meeting about how to set a plan to 1 day become the president
-he says he's experienced enough for the WH because he "studied" international relations in college.
-he says he's experienced enough for the WH because he lived in Indonesia when he was six
-he actually said those last two things with a straight face.
-can he be trusted to stop the Muslims who want to kill your kids
-who IS this guy. really?
By holdencaulfield

"

Perhaps when people actually read the endorsement itself they will realize that it was a "soft endorsement."  But for the tag line at the end the Register's endorsement looked like split endorsement of both Obama and Clinton.  Given this type of endorsement I really do not see this doing much to change the dynamics in Iowa or boost Clinton that much.  Just read what they had to say about Obama:

Barack Obama, senator, Illinois

He’s smart. He’s crafted sharp policy proposals. He’s worked across the aisle as both an Illinois state senator and in the U.S. Senate. He’s done solid work on needed but thankless legislation such as requiring videotaping of police interrogations in capital-punishment cases in Illinois and reforming ethics laws at the state and federal levels. In the U.S. Senate, he’s burnished his foreign-policy credentials on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

So there’s far more to Barack Obama than inspiring oratory, his optimistic messages of hope and change, and his symbolism of youth and multiculturalism. Take all of that as a package, and oh the possibilities. His election would signal to all Americans, especially young black men, that our nation still holds opportunities for them. And it would signal to the world that America is more attuned to the international community. Obama says it like this: From the day I’m elected, this country will look at itself differently, and the world will look at us differently.

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

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. That’s not a bad choice.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON TO ENDORSE HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IS THE WRITER OF THIS LETTER, BECAUSE SHE GETS MY VOTE.  AND A VOTE IS BETTER THAN AN ENDORSEMENT ANY DAY.

On the republican side I hope DMR got it right.  McCain is a man that I admire, although strongly disagree with his foreign policy. He is candid with his position and unwavering in his convictions.  He has the experience and is well respected.
The Clinton endorsement I find to be a surprise.  NO... I am not anti-Clinton, but after re-evaluation of "ALL" of the debates, her actions in the senate, and recalling her time as First Lady, I see her as a very good "politician".  
The situation the "Bush" administration has created leaves America little room for error, and NO room for political rhetoric.  
Obama is a very intelligent man, and will be a good future president.
We are at war with increasing tension in the middle east and I am sure the present administration has no intent to change policy.  We have a middle class that is finding it difficult to maintain the standard of living it had even two years ago. This election MUST be about fixing America.
I believe we need a person with "real" experience, common sense, and a reasonable resolve to our world situation. I am sorry to say that unlike the democrats here, if the choice is Sen. Clinton vs Sen. McCain, I will reluctantly vote for McCain.

I knew the DMR had some weird calculation about their endorsement plans based on the comments their reporters were making in past few days. I will share what I wrote before the endorsement came through.

"I would not hold my breath expecting endorsement from the Register writers if the comments made by Yepsen and another reporter named Beaumont is any indication.

Yesterday, on Hardball Yepsen was simply ridiculous. He didn't even agree that it was a mistake for Shaheen to smear Obama. He thought it should have been done months ago so that people could digest it. He also lumped Hillary and Obama together for negative campaigning and how Iowans don't like it and David Gregory of NBC thankfully interjected that the attack was one sided and Obama had "stayed above the fray". Few days ago Yepsen was also making noise about Obama openly encouraging college students to caucus and in the same piece mentioning that it was perfecly legal to do so and Obama is not the first one to do it and further requiring Obama to apply a different standard.

Then, there was Mr Beaumont on CSPAN after the debate suggesting Hillary was the one who looked polished and rested etc. and when he talked about "top teir" mentioned just Hillary and Edwards. He was the exception among dozens of pundits whose impression were that Hillary was the only one trying hard to make up lost grounds while the other candidates were relaxed and comfortable.

When I see these ridiculous, sorry comments it makes me think they are just looking for excuses not to endorse this otherwise admirable movement(Obama's). I hope I am wrong"

I was right and it was a bad decision by the DMR. I don't think it will have the intended effect.

To all posting on this blog and to the voters of Iowa,

Do not base your judgement on the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the DMR. This election will be based on real change. The country is tired of the the politics of perception and division that took place during the Bush/Clinton years. This election is similar to the Presidential Election of 1968. The times that we face today in the country are similar to those in '68. The country is polarized today as was the case 40 years ago and the chief candidates for President are just as similar as was the case back then. Today the Clinton's and President Bush play the same role to the electorate as did Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) in 1968. Barrack Obama and John Edwards remind us of the candidacy of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy respectively 40 years ago. Despite Hillary Clinton's endorsement by the DMR, the country's desire for change and the voters displeasure with negative campaigning and the deception with her so-called "experience" and agency for change have put this candidate in serious danger of losing the nomination which parallels LBJ's failed candidacy of 1968. Mark my word.  

At least the DeMoines Register is consistent.  They endorsed two experienced candidates.

The Boston Globe endorsed Obama inexpienced but a fresh face but they turned around and endorsed a very experienced candidate, John Mc Cain.  

It seems to me that the Globe canceled out their reason for endorsement.   Obama and McCain???  

To All posting on this blog and to the voters of Iowa,              

AMENDED
Do not base your judgement on the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the DMR. This election will be based on real change. The country is tired
of the politics of perception and division that took place during the Bush/Clinton years. This election is similar to the Presidential Election of 1968. The times that we face today in the country are
similar to those in '68. The country is polarized today as was the case 40 years ago and the chief candidates for President are just as similar
as was the case back then. Today the Clinton's and President Bush play the same role to the electorate as did Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) in 1968. Barrack Obama and John Edwards remind us of the candidacy of Robert
Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy respectively 40 years ago. Despite Hillary Clinton's endorsement by the DMR, the country's desire for change and the voters displeasure with negative campaigning as well as this deception with her so-called "experience" and agency for change have put this candidate in serious danger of losing the nomination.  

Hillary Clinton's candidacy is now in the same position to fail as LBJ's candidacy failed in 1968. Mark my word.

Considering the fact that the DMR consistantly picks losers to receive their endorsement, I couldn't care much less.

Interesting factoid; the Clinton campaign pressed hardest for that endorsement.  Even Bill was dispatched to try and sway them.   Their justifications for her receiving the endorsement(which were Hillary's empty talking points) call their investigative abilities into question, or rather their integrity into question.  Oh, and the entire DMR board is currently women.  Hrm.  

The Des Moines Register has always been a rag.  Now that it is run by femi-nazis, it was predictable that they would select one of their own. Clinton is a disgrace to America. She and her husband sold America to the highest bidder through NAFTA and their corporate buddies.  The Chinese funds never seem to end for her, until the other TSU (shoe) drops.
  The Iowa regional newspapers are more in tune with their constituencies.  I would be more interested in seeing who the Waterloo Courier, The Cedar Rapids Gazette, or the Quad Cities Times supports.

Is HRC really "ready to lead"? I would think Biden would be way better since he has, and continues to, lead. Biden, Obama, and Dodd supporters are all very similar and would support each other. We tend to, however, have deep reservations about our misleading, disingenuous frontrunner.

Congrats to Hillary getting the Des Moines Register endorsement tonight. Considering that they have their recent history dating back to 1988 of selecting the person not to win the Iowa caucus, I am proud of this accomplishment for her and her inept campaign. I will welcome her 3rd place finish in the state on January 3rd. Again, Congrats!

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/10/19/1/an-hour-with-senator-barack-obama

In hindsight Bill Clinton might be saying Hillary Clinton should’ve never went to Iowa. The truth of the matter is there’s a chance that she might come in third in Iowa and she could’ve pulled third without even going. http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

waaa waaaa waaaaa! like i said in the earlier report contemplating who would get the nod from the DMR, all the obama supporters - right along with these wannabe reporters from firstread - would find some reason to bash the decision to endorse the right person...Hillary Clinton. now just consider what these posts would have said had obama gotten the nod...ohhh this is the top paper in iowa and this is proof that hillary can't win, this is proof that her campaign is over, blah, blah, blah.  sour grapes for the obama supporters. and what is with the whinning about anything that anybody says about him? people can't criticize his policies or his shortcomings without him and all his supporters crying about how he is being unfairly attacked.  when in reality, he has been the most vicious, sniveling, spoiled little brat in the entire field of candidates.  who wants a cry baby for president? certainly not me. waaaa waaaaa waaaa.

we need Hillary to run our country. Thanks for the endorsement.  She will make us proud.

HRC will lead us out of the Bush/Cheney mess and back into the impeaching of a President process, and into a war with Iran.  If she is the nominee, the Republicans will regain control of the Congress and continue to enjoy control of the Oval Office.  

Hillary's campaign is in trouble for a good reason -- her politics is a Bush-lite politics.  If you like how things are going, vote for HRC.  If you want real change, if you've had enough, then you go with Obama.  Thank God the Iowa people were already way ahead of the DMR on this.  33%-24%-24%.  

Didn't they also endorse Walter Mondale, who lost to Reagan 525-13?  And Paul Simon, Bill Bradley, John Edwards -- none of whom enjoyed any time as President?  Nominating HRC will destroy our chance at the Oval Office, mark my words.  

OBAMA SUPPORTERS,  PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS KIND OFF ASSOCIATION FROM OBAMA IS ETHICAL AND MAKES HIM A QUALIFIED HONEST, CANDIDATE.

Obama buys Rezko land
Over the years, Rezko, Mahru, their wives and businesses have given more than $50,000 to Obama's campaign funds, records show. And Rezko has helped raise millions more.
Rezko was among the people Obama appointed to serve on his U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, the Sun-Times reported in 2003. The committee raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

As a U.S. senator, Obama grew closer to Rezko.

Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife.

Last year, Rita Rezko sold a strip of that vacant lot to Obama for $104,500 -- a deal Obama later apologized for, acknowledging that people might think he got a favor from Rezko. Obama called the episode "boneheaded'' and a "mistake.''

At the time Obama bought that strip of land, it had been reported that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling involving the administration of Blagojevich, whose campaign also received Rezko's financial support.

Rezko has since been indicted for allegedly demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Blagojevich. Rezko's trial has been postponed while investigators sort through his finances

Thank you Des Moines Register for endorsing the best candidate for our country, Senator Clinton

The media has helped build Obama up bigtime, I think  it is intersting that the media saw almost no way Clinton could score the big endorsemnt.

But she did.

The fact is Obama is a "star".  No doubt.  But Americans are not going to elect a star to the White House.  Not in troubled times.  

Having grown up in (& left) Iowa, this is a pattern I am familiar with.  The "average" Iowan wants certain things in a candidate, which the Register reports on fairly well, but the Register then ignores it's own reporting & endorses the candidate that they believe will keep Iowa relevant in this entire process.  What they don't understand is that by picking the BEST choice, not the one they think the rest of the nation wants them to pick, they would be doing more for their relevancy than this.  Hillary Clinton is unelectable in our current culture of divisiveness; & if her leanings toward the negative & suggestions of mud-slinging actually come to pass, she won't even win Iowa & it's whopping 8 electoral votes come November.  Considering the Register's recent history of picks, I would be very worried if I were Senator Clinton, this endorsement seems a bit of a curse.
Perhaps there will be a time when Senator Clinton finds herself, becomes more real & less, I'm sorry, slick, and this country will be in a better place to see her experiences as an asset.  Right now, she will not win a general election & I can't stand the thought of 4 more years of the Republican status quo.
As my 8 year old says: Barack Rocks!

Please, someone, anyone, tell me what 'accomplishments' Hillary has achieved.

While you are at it, can you also explain how she has more 'experience' when Obama has been in elected office for a longer period of time.

PLEASE COME AND JOIN IN ON THE CONVERSATION............ hillaryclinton.com

To say the DMR endorsed Mrs.Clinton because it has 6 out 7 women on its board is an insult to the strong women holding those positions and to HRC! To be able to endorse and vote is one of the major freedoms of this country. HRC will make a fantastic president she has the backbone, knowledge and belief to clean up this mess the current administration has placed this country in. Obama and Edwards neither one have the experience she does and remember she has been in the white house as the spouse of a wnderful past president one that left this country in really good shape. Unfortunately we now have a boob in the white house and it will take a Clinton to clean up the boobs mess AGAIN.

I just read an a piece that was about Bill Clinton talked about Obama on PBS. Well it just sickened me the way the Clintons are playing their dirty crap about obamas time in the senate. What is wrong with the american people when they dont stand up to the Clintons and shut them up. Her royal hiness isnt such a hot canidate for president. He and she is as bad as carl rove. All their dirty tricks in the press and say that they had nothing to do with them, when everyone knows they are behind them. Obama is a good man and to talk about his experience she isnt experienced either. Just because she was first lady doesnt give her the experience to run this country any more than Obama. She doesnt live with bill clinton because he probably is playing around on her still after being president. wonder who she is having fun with?. the BUSHES WERE BAD ENOUGH DONT NEED 12 YEARS OF HER.

A CHALLENGE TO "FIRST READ" REPORTERS

We like that you try to inform us developments "First" so that we keep up with what is going on. However, there is so much competition on the internet that if you don't report it we will still get it somewhere else. That means you have to go a step farther to distinguish your site from the others. That will be for example following up stories and getting the real inside story of the report.

For example with this story on DMR endorsement it requires further examination because it is odd. So, I like to see a piece similar to "ANATOMY OF AN ENDORSEMENT".

If the endorsement was based on the best campaign ran it should have been Obama(I am biased but a lot of people even who do not support him agree).
I can also understand why they could have endorsed Edwards;that will be acknowledgment of persistently campaigning and knowing their people in their state. Biden or Richardson, I could say they wanted to give candidates who couldn't brake out to get a chance to be noticed.

But Hillary? This is a campaign that didn't believe in the importance of Iowa and only came back to the state after a second thought. They cted in front of the Iowa people that she was special,only waiting to be coronated rather than convince them why she deserves to be nominated.Despite money and organization they lost momentum instead of gaining momentum because they were not convincing. We were told Iowans don't like negativism but for the last few weeks as the polls tightened her campaign has become the most negative and the sleaziest. So, why endorse Hillary?

Was their some arm twisting and hard ball by Bill and the campaign? Was there some sweet deal? What was it?

A good reporting will get to the bottom of it and try to make sense out of this odd development.

Well the endorsement of Hillary Clinton certainly will stir some debate...but I, for one, appreciate the logic behind their choice and happen to agree with their assessment.  I appreciate the fact that the editorial board had opportunity to actually sit down with these candidates and hear them one-on-one.  They've taken the time to truly know the difference between these candidates.

Sadly, most of America will make their choice for President based on 10 second sound bites.  While I appreciate the relative value of endorsements (celebrity, media or otherwise), wouldn't it be nice if we all took the time to listen to an entire speech or read a candidate's entire position paper and make truly informed choices on our own.  

FR === The Register's endorsement has been particularly influential on the Democratic side. ==

Democrats are so easily led.

Note to First Read - Your lead sentence on this topic is very misleading! The Des Moines Register endorsement has NOT been influential on the Democratic side in campaigns going back 20 years.

They have endorsed losers in 2004, 2000, and 1988. ( The Des Moines Register endorsed Edwards - not the winner of the caucuses, Kerry, in 2004; Bradley - not the winner, Gore, in 2000; and Simon - not the winner, Gephardt, in 1988) No one challenged Tom Harkin - Iowa's favorite son - in 1992; and Clinton had no challenge in 1996. So, HOW can you say they are particularly influential when they have gotten it wrong since 1988?? Sloppy work - you should be more careful in your editing.  

This is an interesting endorsement.  They cite Senator Obama's lack of experience but yet overlook candidates (Senator Biden, for one) who have much more experience than Senator Clinton.  

On the last debate the moderator (apparently one of the 3 people on the editorial board) took Iraq and immigration off the table in advance. could this have something to do with their intention of endorsing Hillary and McCain by protecting them from their perceieved weaknesses- McCain on immigration on the republican side and Hillary on the war on the democratic side? just a thought. It doesn't make sense to have a DEBATE without discussing the most pressing issues on each side except now in hind sight you see why that was the case.

Clinton will get a boost from this and may go on to win the caucus which might or might not help in New Hampshire since the two are so close together. If I were running I would opt out of the Iowa caucus because when you win it you have what? Not one delegate locked up you have what bush 41 called the big mo. Iowa is the "Mouse that Roared" they take in scads of money and in return give precious little. I was chuckling as I read the posts thinking how each anti post would have been different if their candidate had been selected. As for the Coked up Florida tangerine picker I am sure you have a bright future as a ploitical analyst.

I think the DMR's analysis of what we need in a presidential candidate makes a lot of sense. These times are tough, so good traits to look for in a candidate are experience and strength. With the rationale DMR employed, however, the Democratic candidate they ought to have endorsed was Biden.

"They made the correct choice - Hillary is the one ready to lead us out of the Bush/Cheney mess!  This board met with and was wooed by all of the candidates and they chose the BEST - Hillary Clinton!!!"



What about Biden?  How can you possibly compare Hillary's experience with Biden's?  How?  Tell me how she is more ready than Biden.  

She may be more ready than Obama and Edward but against Biden she is, at best, an intern.  

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS.

I say congrats to Hillary and Obama. I am not going to trash Obama (as Hillary is my candidate of choice) for getting the Globe's endorsment. I am a bit surprised, but rather than trashing him (as Bee has done for Hillary) for getting the nomination - I say good for him. (and sure, I'd rather it went to Hillary, but I'm not going to try to diminish it by trying to say it won't matter or provide lame reasons for why he got it).

Bee: you let your true colors shine in stuff like this. So much for politics as unusual. You are the biggest mudslinger and hater on here.

Bee: funny how you claim that the reason she got this was that it was 3 women on the editorial board, but then you berate her for playing the woman card. What a hypocrite.

Incredible,  I guess Hillary Clinton proved that you can go negative in the great state of Iowa and still get the endorsement of the very newspaper that has told us over and over again that Iowans do not vote for candidates that throw mud.  The Clinton campaign sent lies about Obama's religion over the internet,  made jokes about him as a kindergarten student and basically called him a drug dealer. If that is what the Register thinks is being capable then I have a problem with their thinking and their endorsement just lost a lot of credibility.

"SIMPLE SIMON SEZ" and THAT'S IT?  Forget about this nonsense....these two newspapes in IOWA mean absolutely nothing to me and others in my corner of the world....which is mainstream AMERICA, right here in the good old United States.  IOWA means CORN, just CORN....and insofar as the Des Moines Register is concerned, well, I'll go so far as to suggest that they change their name to the Des Moines "Cash Register."  Who got to this newspaper?  They want to "play ball" with the Corporate Power in the USA...that's the same as saying "Our Arm Was Twisted" - so, we're not going to stand up to power, lawfully, legally and challenge the gross discrepancies that exist between wealth, power and povery, and distress.  Take a Brooklyn, NY hike Des Moines Register, and to add insult to injury, I hope you freeze your cookies off this winter, no injuries, just freeze your cookies off - SIMPLE SIMON NEVER INFLUENCED ME and OTHERS THAT I KNOW.  YOU CAVED Des Moines Register, you're a Jellyfish!

I'm enjoying all the whining from the BO fanatics.

at least you have something in common with your canidate...

mutual whining when the going gets rough.

he's not ready.the gop would tear him apart

No matter how they deny it, this agonized-over endorsement is a sharp stick in the eye to all the rabid Hillary-haters and gushy Obama-lovers whose passion for change has blinded them to the fact that Hillary is a doer and Obama is a talker. She has credibility, and he has charisma. To vote for him, as Bill Clinton has said, is to "roll the dice with America."

Given the disgraceful anti-Hillary and pro-Obama media bias that has been the hallmark of this campaign, consistently trashing Hillary for being negative and making small fumbles while giving Obama a free pass for the very same things, God bless the Des Moines Register for having the objectivity and guts to see through the hype and endorse the right candidate for the job. Hopefully, it will help Hillary regain the momentum her detractors have been working so hard to kill. Given all of Obama's advantages--being a Senator from a neighboring state, the Oprah hoopla, using questioable tactics to have out-of-towners take over the caucus, etc.-- even if Hillary comes in second it will be a victory.

In four years' time, there'll be another round of stories on the eve of the DMR endorsement -noting that it endorsed Clinton, who then failed to win the Iowa caucuses, just like her DMR endorsed predecessors.

Worth considering the relative numbers, too. Circulation of the Sunday Globe? 550,000. The Des Moines Register? 230,000. Big difference in the number of eyes in the number of states the Globe endorsement will reach. Longer term, Clinton losing NH would be bigger news than Clinton winning in Iowa.

Congrats to McCain, though. We can only hope that enough Republicans wake up to the weirdness of having a new front-runner who hadn't heard about the NIE report on Iran a couple weeks back, and who believes the earth is literally just 6,000 years old. We've had one Republican president who didn't let facts get in the way of his thinking; we really don't need his party nominating another.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):