More on the Register's endorsements

Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:41 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann
A few things to keep in mind about last night's endorsements of Hillary Clinton and John McCain by the Des Moines Register:
-- The endorsement's focus on experience and readiness to lead the country is key to Clinton's argument in the waning days before the caucuses. The Register is a trusted source to many Iowa voters, and although its influence isn't always unmistakable (consider 2000 or the fact that none of the endorsed Dems in recent years has gone on to win the caucuses), it is certainly a factor in the evaluation of some undecideds. It is a huge boost for a campaign that has struggled here in the last two weeks, and it could be just the news that Team Hillary needs to halt its skid.

-- Buzz in town late yesterday afternoon was positive for an Obama nod, and a few preemptive rumors started circulating early that he, in fact, was going to win the endorsement. Some journalists and campaign staff were surprised -- to say the least -- at the selection of Clinton. One source from a rival campaign said that they had heard Clinton had been ruled out of the process weeks ago; another said that the editorial board had apparently found Clinton to be overly methodical and stringent in their meetings. But, as the New York Times' Zeleny reported on Saturday, the Clinton campaign courted this endorsement diligently. And it paid off.

-- Don't forget to read the paper's candidate-by-candidate justification of the also-rans. Note that there's not a negative word about Obama. And take a look at the continued questioning of Biden's "loquaciousness" and "ill-considered remarks related to race."

-- The Register's debates on Wednesday and Thursday were universally panned. Blogo-buzz ranged from dismal to downright mean about editor Carolyn Washburn's mediation of the debate, and the format and logistics were unarguably underplanned and underconsidered. The campaigns won't say it, but more than one journalist will raise the point that the scoffed-at event will undermine the cache of the endorsement in a major way.

-- The nod to McCain garners much less significance than the Democratic endorsement, but it does say something meaningful about the paper's criteria. First of all, it echoes the call for experience made by the paper's support for Clinton, and (to a lesser degree) it discounts the importance of dedication to campaigning in the state; McCain has spent comparatively little time in Iowa since his unpopular stances on the war and immigration all but scuttled his chances with Iowa Republicans. Combined with the support of the Boston Globe and the New Hampshire Union Leader, however, many will say that McCain is racking up enough ink to spell "Comeback." In a field with two Iowa GOP front-runners without particularly impressive foreign policy credentials, this could conceivably be a way to start shoring up enough support to yield a third place win here for the Arizona senator.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

So when will the press ask Clinton to actually explain her experience? What exactly constitutes her experience? When asked this question in the past, she has said, "Well, everybody knows what I've done." She should not be able to get by with an answer like that! She claims experience but never backs it up, so will there be a journalist in the next 2 weeks that actually stands up against this "experience" argument and asks for supporting details?

Kevin, Florida (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:52 PM)

I didn't find the DMR criticism of Senator Biden to be valid. They appear willing to overlook certain faults of both Senators Clinton and Obama, yet a few comments by a man who has spent 30 years in Congress, who has championed civil rights causes, etc. are held against Senator Biden. Sorry, I don't find the paper's justification of their endorsement credible.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:57 PM)

one again CLinton shows she gets the job done "the Clinton campaign courted this endorsement diligently"

obama's forum (ie, first read) makes that sound like a negative.
She had a goal, she worked to reach that goal, she learned from her mistakes, she made the goal.
FR tries to spin it for BO

if BO had gottenthe nomination , FR would be singing his praises as an achiever... and not spinning it for Clinton.

BUT HRC won, obama lost

Chuck, san D (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:14 PM)

Mccain?Why?More wars?Why not Edwards---you claim hde was right on about all reasons to elect him and then meander off into ----where?

HMT-MI (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:15 PM)

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

HMT-MI (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:16 PM)

They question Biden's loquaciousness and comments regarding race when in their own stupid "debate" he is the only candidate who sticks to the time limits and the others applaud his civil rights records. Give me a break. They basically wrote a column endorsing Biden and inserted the name Clinton by accident. This is a tragedy for the Register's supposed independence. The two Carols can go shuck some corn because that's what they were doing on this one and the "debates." I've had it with them.

John Des Moines, IA (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:18 PM)

Well, whatever one's position one cannot, I opine, accuse the Des Moines Register of inconsistency. Re the Democratic endorsement, the paper was absolutely consistent with its argument for same. Given the road map which its statement lays out and/or implies for the way the next potus should conduct him/her self in Washington, Sen. Clinton SHOULD have been the endorsee.

The problem with this, again in my opinion, is that the road map calls more for the status quo than a fresh vision. It is precisely the way business is done with the various entrenched constituencies in Washington (and elsewhere) where the fresh vision, not represented in the paper's statement of support for Sen. Clinton, is required.

POLpursun (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:18 PM)

How appropriate - let's trash the endorsesment.

Soon we will see comment after comment at how this shows how desparate the Clinton campaign is.

Congratulations Hillary, you got the endorsement.

Sean (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:32 PM)

I don't think the endorsement from the DMR is going to help Hillary all that much at this point. Her campaigning has been so unbeliveably dirty over the past several months that so many Iowans have been turned off by her. Not to mention the fact that the Today show and local media raked her over the coals on Friday morning. Not even the DMR's endorsement can change that, in a state that HATES negative campaigning.

No one who has behaved that way in the past has gotten the DMR nod, so HRC only got it because her husband pushed for it.

Ava (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:38 PM)

It time you came and took a "real" looksie............. hillaryclinton.com

Jim Johnson, Des Moines, Iowa (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:54 PM)

I have read on other sites the point you made that the endorsements by the Des Moines Register this year will have even less influence than the already limited influence they have had in other years because of the paper's dismal debates that they hosted this past week. I totally agree. The Des Moines Register's debates, moderated by their editor Ms. Washburn, have been roundly panned as the worst debates in history! As you also mentioned, the paper's track record for endorsing the ultimate Iowa caucus winner in past years is horrible! They have never been key in someone going on to win the caucuses. As an example, in 2004, Edwards, who got their endorsement, still placed second, but Kerry, who did not get their nod, jumped from a distant third place to stun everyone by winning! It's almost the "kiss of death" to get their endorsement! Their reasoning on slighting Edwards is puzzling, mentioning his negative campaigning. Uh, exuse me, but what has the Clinton campaign - Mark Penn & Co. - been doing for the last few weeks? If negative campaigning is so important, why on earth would they choose Clinton? It's ridiculous. But, as an Obama fan, I'm very happy that he received the much more historically influential and accurate Boston Globe nod. I truly believe the Democrats in Iowa, NH, and everywhere want a leader who can inspire us and bring this country together. Can you really see the Republicans in Congress uniting with Democrats in a Hillary administration? She carries too much 1990s baggage. We need a fresh start to have any hope of successfully tackling the important issues facing this country. Obama is that person. Even the Des Moines Register acknowledged that he could be another FDR or JFK!

Sarah, Vienna, VA (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:23 PM)

Yes, I think it "will undermine the cache of the endorsement in a major way".

On that note I want to pose a curious question?

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?Can you imagine how bad McCain and Hillary would have looed if the issue of Immigration or Iraq and Kyle/Lieberman was raised in front of their respective primary voters?just a thought. It doesn't make sense to have a DEBATE without discussing the most pressing hot button issues for each party's primary voters except now in hind sight you see why that might be the case.

mike, dallas, TX (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:26 PM)

Another evidence that the content of the questions and the format had something to do with a pre planned endorsement of Hillary is the fact that the race and the gaffe question to Joe Biden after unequivocally got quashed by the person who is most personally affected (Obama)and received warm compliments they brought it back in their decision to give or deny endorsements.

In fact the only gaffe that was made at the debate was Hillarys disrespectful laughter and "gotcha"oment which was unrehearsed moment of her real personality in display but she didn't pay any price for it. This is also another evidence that the debate and the endorsement was well preplanned. Hillary couldn't make a mistake (even if she did) and Obama, Edwards or Biden couldn't do well even though they did well in everybody's eyes.

mike, dallas, TX (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:39 PM)

I would think those horrible, PTA like debates by the DMR would weaken their endorsement in many of Iowa's voters. Not sure if it was the editor/moderator's fault, but she was the spokeswoman. Read a funny artible by Kay Obrien likening her to the church lady from SNL

Kaye Miller, WA (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:45 PM)

The remarks toward Obama are actually more positive and inspiring than the ones about Hillary, they simply did not have enough guts to break free. Ahhh, the midwest, their "debate" format should have been a prediction of the lack of inspiration they have.

Kaye Miller, WA (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:01 PM)

No negative words for Obama. Lets be objective here people. Outside of the Clinton camp, and possibly the Edwards camp on occasion, where has anyone said anything negative about Obama? He is getting a pass.

He was tested when he ran for the Senate and he isn't being tested now.

When was the last time a reporters asked him series of tough questions and pounded him for follow up? What about his support of big coal? What about the fact that he changed all those names in his book and we now find one friend is an excon? What is Obama hiding? Why doesn't he talk chance, but his short Senate career has no record of him doing anything to bring about change?

The media is treating Obama like a pup.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:04 PM)

The Des Moines registrar endorcement was a joke.
On the republican side McClain has seldom come
to Iowa, didn't participate in the Straw vote, essentially ignore Iowa and the Des Moines registrar
supports him. And on the Democratic side Hilliary Clinton is scary. The last two weeks of her campaign
was an embarrassment. Her husband on charley Rose
saying that the Presidency was like a 1000 dollar prositute. Her negative campaigning. She was the
worst candidate this month. corrupt inside politics
, 6 middle age women out 7 voted for her. Sad.

Donald Greer, Salt Lake City, Utah (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:06 PM)

Donald Greer, Salt Lake City, Utah (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:07 PM)

I would rather have a "loquacious" candidate than a candidate who can't even hold her campaign together when the tough questions come.

How many times during the "35 years of experience" has Hillary needed to be repackaged, explained, clarified, and defended. The 60 Minutes Interview, the Pink Press Conference, the multitude of hairstyles (remember the Today Show interview with Katie Couric when she dressed up as a librarian? Do I need to continue?)

The Clinton campaign is, in essence, saying to the electorate: You don't REALLY understand our candidate. Even though she has been in the national public eye for 16 years you - uninformed public - are unable to understand her greatness. While we, the campaign, cannot offer any real, substantive examples of issues HRC has taken on AND succeeded in creating a coalition around, TRUST US, she is super smart.

I have no doubt that HRC is smart. I have no doubt OBAMA is smart. I have no doubt they believe they should be President.

What puts doubt in my head - serious, anxiety-inducing doubt - is the lack of understanding on an array of topics.

What BIDEN has is a deep understanding of the world-wide political climate. BIDEN has more knowledge and understanding of a wider variety of cultures and peoples through his continued, long-term involvement in the most salient foreign policy matters of the last 30 years than Obama and Clinton SQUARED. BUT, don't forget his CRIME BILL, Violence Against Women Act, Iraq Plan, etc., etc., etc.,
If TWO comments (which I will not concede were racist, EVER) have more weight in the mind of the editorial board than 35 years of experience in the Senate then this country has more problems than I ever imagined.

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:09 PM)

This might all be true if Republican voters swooned over media endorsements, instead of rebelling against them, but the fact is the McCain comeback stories are almost as ridiculous as the ones that pumped him up as the Republican frontrunner for the the six months of the year. The ONLY reason his general election match-up polling has recently improved relative to Rudy is that the greater populace stopped seeing McCain as a viable shot at the nomination, meaning less scrutiny of his Bush-like war positions, whereas Rudy the frontrunner received more and more scrutiny of his neoconservative leanings that whittled away his favorability.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:30 PM)

WOW! Unfortunately, you folks at First Read are showing your pro-Obama colors.

Stu, Saginaw, MI (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:33 PM)

how can any american with an ounce of intelligence support someone like barack obama for president of the united states. what in the world does he have in his background that qualifies him for the most powerful position in the world. would you really want him facing people like putin of russia, olmert of israel, il of north korea, ahmadinajad of iran, in matters of security and preservation of our country?
think about it, he would be terrified and they would pounce on him like a hound on a rabbit. that would scare me to death. putting him in charge of the usa would be like putting a j soprano in charge of tony's mob. it just wouldn't work. please remember, this country is the most powerful country in the world and we need a strong, seasoned individual that can, and has , stood toe to toe with these world leaders and not flinched. that definitely is not barack obama. vote with your mind and your concern for this country. do not be swayed by celebrity or someone making impassioned speaches. vote for that person who makes you feel safe. vote for clinton or edwards. they are the two most capable people we have to vote for. also, hillary has the smartest, most seasoned and capable partner in her husband,bill. what more can you ask for. you get one, you get the other.

phil angelo, new castle,pa. (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:47 PM)

It sounds like the DMR had a really tough time choosing between Barack Obama and Clinton. I personally think that they made the "safe" choice (if you read their article). Nevertheless, this is a HUGE blow to Edwards' campaign, which could have withstood a nod to Obama, but to Clinton, this really hurts. Clinton and Edwards share many of the same voters. Really, for me (an Obama fan, or should I say a Hillary non-fan), the best thing that could have happened would have been for Edwards to get the endorsement. Then, he and Obama would have beaten Hillary in Iowa (which could still happen), and she would have been dead from there. Vote Obama 08 America.

Devin, Champaign, Illinois (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:52 PM)

The DMR endorsement is definitely a nice pickup for Clinton. Are many fence sitters devoted enough to go through the caucus process really going to be pushed one way or the other by a paper endorsement? I doubt it. But it provides a nice positive narrative for her to focus on going into the last full week of campaigning before the holidays. She would be wise to take advantage of it rather than continuing her attack strategy.

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

John M., San Diego, CA (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 4:17 PM)

sean

I wasn't trashing the endorsement. My point is that I would like to a see a clearer reason for not endorsing Senator Biden. When one looks at some of the items about ther leading candidates that have surfaced here, I think being loquacious is a minor issue.

But, yes, I agree congratulations to Senator Clinton.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 5:03 PM)

The Register's justification for choosing Clinton's experience over Biden's (it's the Register's view that Biden's decades in the Senate have made his life experience too narrow) is too ridiculous to take seriously.

Are you an American with a son or daughter fighting in Iraq? While Joe Biden shares this experience, none of the other candidates even come close.

Are you a single parent? For five years after his wife died, Joe Biden was, too. Again, no other candidate is possessed of this very common experience in American life.

Are you middle-class person? Joe Biden is, too -- his personal wealth ranks him 99th out of 100 in the Senate.

Are you the caretaker of a sick relative, or perhaps suffer from a difficult illness or surgery yourself? Joe Biden understands that experience, too. While his two young sons survived the accident that killed his wife and daughter, both boys were both seriously injured and required a great deal of subsequent care. And Biden himself survived surgery for two brain anuerysms.

Are you a daily commuter? So's Joe, who commutes from Washington, D.C. to Delaware daily.

Did you get your education somewhere other than an Ivy League university? So did Joe.

The Register claims that, since there is largely a concensus of agreement with respect to the issues, the candidates do not distinguish themselves here. And that's true -- they all agree with Joe! (It would seem that the Register is assuming that, if another candidate is elected, no other issue will arise and, if one does, the person sitting in the president's chair will not make any decisions without consulting Joe first, and will unerringly take his advice.)

Which leaves as the Register's final criticism of Joe Biden his "loquaciousness." Surely by now it should without saying that the problems our nation faces are extremely complex, and their solutions don't come in soundbites. And since Joe's the one who actually has the answers, he doesn't have to rely on soundbites or speeches that make you feel good but don't really say anything.

It's my understanding that the Register's editorial board is comprised largely of women and, while I don't support the notion, I can entirely understand there may be an inclination to support one's gender. (I'm certain, for example, that the board would decry to the rafters the idea that such loyalty should extend to one's race.)

I can also understand that it would be easy to be "bowled over" by the charismatic charm of a Bill or a Barack.

But when American lives -- and American quality of life -- is at stake, it is breathtakingly irresponsible for the media to be so cavalier and ill-considered in making endorsements on such a frivolous basis. Many people I know agree that Joe Biden would make the best president, but he's just not "charming" enough.

Well, we've seen where electing a president based on "charm" has gotten us. Isn't it time we looked for competency instead?

Gayle M. (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 5:39 PM)

In Biden's "loquaciousness" you will hear years of experience and wisdom, answers and solutions, honesty and a man of his word. What you won't hear is flip-flopping, hedging, "riding the fence," or sound bites. I much prefer a straight-shooter who tells it like it is.

Julia - Iowa (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:47 PM)

I totally agree that Obama is getting a pass. He gives a great speech, but never really follows up on what he is going to do or how he is going to make his changes work. Also, the press does not pound on him at all. I like Obama, but I definitely think experience matters, especially during these times when this country is in such a much; i.e., the war, the economy,healthcare, etc. I'm glad to see that the Des Moines Register saw through all the hype the press is putting out and endorsed a candidate that could really do somthing for this country.

Lori, Petaluma, California (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:53 PM)

I am amazed that they endorsed her. Ive said it over and over again: if she wins the nomination I and a lot of other southern democrats will not vote for her. She will KILL the downballots all over the country (including my own district TX-10) and will be responsible for the loss of the Senate back to the republicans. Mark my words ladys and gents; we will not vote for her and we are the ones who you need more than you think. Southern and Midwestern Dem's support one candidate over all others: John Edwards. Give us John and we will give you the White House and a stronger senate and house. Dont...and we will not be held responsible for what happens when the republicans take it all back.

Jonathan, Austin, TX (Sent Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:05 PM)

Ha Ha,
John McCain picks up the endorsement of the DMR. He can't even find it on a map. The only place he visits regularly is Iraq, and then lies about how safe it is over there. I see he also picked up the endorsement of Joe Lieberman, another loser. I guess Lieberman is making his pitch to be McCain's VP.
McCain can't even beat himself. He has less money than Ron Paul and the wrong message. What an idiot.

BubbaDownSouth (Sent Monday, December 17, 2007 5:52 AM)

From a life long Democrate. All of the canidates in the dems side have more experience than Obama. If he gets the nomination, this is the first time I will vote for a Republican who has more experience than Obama. I and several friends and family feel the same. We need proven leaders at this time.

Lee (Sent Monday, December 17, 2007 10:27 AM)

I am confused about something. Since when is it a negative to be methodical and stringent? These are two qualities that normally would be revered in a leader or president. So Hillary likes to think things through and look at all the angles and she is compeling, forceful and convincing. Those are the definitions of methodical and stringent, folks. I guess in todays world up is down and down is up. So sad. I am still at a loss why the mainstream press spins for Obama and does not scrutinize his every campaign move the way it does with Clinton. I don't think that any candidate should get special treatment. My question is why is MSNBC and NBC giving it to Obama?

Rob, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Monday, December 17, 2007 11:45 AM)

It is quite obvious that Obama is getting great press. When Chris Matthews of Hardball pounded on Hillary for the kindergarten story, he gave a total pass for his missing the senate vote on Iran and voting "present" at the Illinois senate several times without taking any stand. Democrats should be really worried about Obama as their candidate in the general election. He was not tested at all. He almost got a free pass to the Senate when Illinois Republicans has to import a fringe candidate from out of state for only a token opposition. Is he really going to be ready for the Republican onslaught at the general election? He doesn't even have a prayer against the weakest Republcian candidate at the November election.The democrats who think he can deserve to lose.

thanu, Peru, IL (Sent Monday, December 17, 2007 2:38 PM)

Why does it matter who the DMR supports? They called for the defeat of "Razorwire" Congressman King for his "unique" outlook on people and the real America, yet he was elected from that bastion of righteousness 5th Congressional District in eastern Iowa."

martha, denison, iowa (Sent Monday, December 17, 2007 8:52 PM)

the gop better ask mccain who his running mate is to be. can you imagine the ridicule if it was liebermann.

bill george, st. pete, fl. (Sent Monday, January 28, 2008 4:59 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=520009