Wow...to think, Patti, Ann, Mark, et. al. spent all that time kissing the proverbial rumps of the Register editors when it would have been better spent getting off their large butts walking blocks for HRC.

The endorsement is a lot of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.

When she finishes third on January 3rd, I will not be surprised. The fact is HRC is the Howard Dean of 2004 -- support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

I take it that Cilizza is joking when he said that Hillary swayed the Board in her favor. I will continue to believe that the Board would have made its decision based on its own observation, research etc.
Nevertheless, I will never be swayed by Hillary's contention of experience. Experience doing what? Trying to upstage the policies of the right wing? This is a woman who voted for a war against a people who did us no harm. But to make matters worse, she refused to apologize, but instead, then proceeded to blame the President using all kinds of dubious and somewhat idotic accusations. To confirm that Hillary's first vote was no accident, she again voted to brand Iran's revoluntary guards a terrorist organization with a view to fuelling a further attack by the US military against Iran. He excuse, she felt she had to do something. This comes of the heels of saying that she had been previously deceived by the President and his men into supporting the Iraq war. At the time of the latter vote, the only reference she had regarding the revolutionary guard, was what had been told to her the same [deceptive] administration. If the administration plan to launch an attack against had materialized, it would have had the backing of Hillary. It took someone else, another Democrat (ex post facto), to push through further legislation with the hope of preventing any aggressive measures by the administration against Iran. This confirmed for me that Hillary is a vulture of opportunism and not a source of experience. Remember her experience in Health Care?
A vote for Hillary for president is a vote to continue in the same path we are going, except that the Lobbyists and special interest groups will move their residence to the West Wing.

"Lesbian" is not a perjorative. Some of the best people I know/knew, some of the people I've loved the most, were lesbian. If you TAKE it as a perjorative, that is (truly) YOUR problem. And "lesbians are man haters" is just a BS stereotype, which, as a man, I know to be just that.

That said, I would never vote for Hillary. Ne. Ver. She is the female Dem version of Richard Nixon. Nixon had his enemies list, HRC has the Right Wing Conspiracy. People who do not agree with you are NOT necessarily your enemies, but that fine point was lost on RMN and HRC, and now politics today is more polarized than ever, and political gridlock is the result. Hillary claims she's been working on issues for 30+ years, but how come you never heard of her until her husband was elected? She's dishonest and devoid of any principles (other than winning, much like a shark) I can discern.

If Obama or Edwards gets the nomination, the party can unite behind that candidate. If Hillary wins -- especially given the scorched earth campaign she will/has run when the going gets tough -- the party will be divided. It will be just like 1980, when pro-Kennedy Dems (like me) sat on our hands rather than support a Jimmy Carter who went out of his way to slam our candidate. The big lie is that Hillary is the most electable option the Dems have. She's the least electable -- she'll make Dems stay home and Repubs turn out.

OBAMA should let the Clintons __who had been living for so long in vice to the extent that they completely forgot what the word MORALITY had ever meant __ continue to show the People of America their true faces. Their attacks will let Americans see by themselves how electing Obama will avoid them the disaster that the election of the Siamese Clinton couple would provoke. Their attacks constitute the best arguments for a judgment of the Americans for never vote for such a couple and for Obama supporters to move on. One hears Clintons talking again and again about EXPERIENCE. Such repetition requires the definition of Experience making difference between good and enriching experience, the experience of a good husband and parent role model, and the bad experience. The matter is about experiences, which never allow the glorification or the rewarding the unblushing liar. There are of course unenviable experiences that the Clintons excel in and which Obama needs not possess nor long for: the contempt and the deceit and vice, even if he is dubbed by the Clintons too 'green' to run for US President.

These attacks would let caucus goers who are still hesitating about Hillary Clinton, to finally make Obama their genuine candidate for the White House. The African Americans old guard, namely Andrew Young and others who are supporting the Clintons should be reminded that the Clintons' campaign allusion to cocaine, is the reminiscence of the racial belief and the deforming optic, through which the Black, the African American is seen, whatever be his highest moral and intellectual status and achievements. That is what makes the Clintons pissed-off so much so as to see in Barack Obama a 'black guy', who dare to challenge: Hillary, the wife of the "massa". Nominating and electing Barack Obama will show the entire world that the People of America had definitely turned the last page the inglorious chapter of their past and now engaging themselves in a new Revolution by opening a new page of their HISTORY for inventing a more humane society. That, once again in the United State of America the HISTORY is in making!

"The editor's of Iowa's most influential newspaper closely guarded their pick, leaving people like The Fix to engage in rampant speculation about which Democrat and Republican would get the nod."

The "editor's"???

"people like The Fix"?: what would The Fix's Social Security number be?

This is Clintonism at its worst. They speak the populist tongue, but when it turns out that most people are against them, they punt and run to the Establishment for help.

Clinton is a boot licker and always will be (Bill or Hillary, take your choice, same person).

CC, your article opens my heart like the window opens, thank you. bswamina, you are correct, I can't wait the new Chapter, Madame President, Hillary deserved to be our 44th President, Go HILLARY 2008.

Bill in the 90s debating Bush:

"experience counts but its not everything" - perfect endorsement of Obama!

"insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" - exactly, that's why we *don't* want HRC in the White House--the more things change the more they remain the same!

"we've got to have courage to change" - exactly, no Bush-Clinton dynasties Fast forward to today and the Billary robotic machine team flip flops on this entire argument and bashes Obama for supposedly lacking experience and offering change in D.C.

[paste this link, it's worth the laugh!]

We need new experience in Washington http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k

Back from Dr. visit. These personal attacks are way out of line and serve no useful purpose. Lets try and at least act like we have a little sense.

In regards to the Register endorsement of Clinton. Maybe it is a godsend in disguise.

In fact, Clinton detractors note, since 1980 the Register has not endorsed a single winning candidate.

Who needs a woman as president when her husband kept sending her out of the States to keep her out of his election campaigns. Isn't that the reason she visited so many countries!!!!!!!!

"MikeB

-I have a degree in English and 15 years of professional experience as a writer in several capacities.

---That's nice, dear.

- I'm sure I have read sufficiently to hold an intelligent conversation on most topics (without claiming expertise in some or most). I work in publishing, and have also been a journalist, activist, and PR writer.

--- Are you comparing creds with somebody? Me, perhaps? I was raised in the gutter by wolves, okay? I'm certainly not whipping out my CV for the likes of you and your extremely troubled pal.

- I can rebut a logically weak argument such as yours without an intimate knowledge of feminist slang.

--- Terrific muscle flexing. Now, get to the point, please. The only argument I have made is that "Mike" has been extremely rude.

- What's more, you begin by saying "I ... hope that when you describe Hillary's supporters as 'womyn' ... you are not using that word as a synonym for 'lesbian.'" As far as I am aware, MikeB never confirmed that such was his intent, yet from then on you treat it as accepted fact simply because you want it to be true.

---He didn't contradict it, either, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so.

- "And people are labeled stupid, drooling redneck women-haters, when their rhetoric about women candidates consists mainly of personal barbs such as degree-of-wrinkledness, age, and gender preference -- not just toward the candidate but toward all women who support her."

- You say this with such assurance.

--- You bet. If "Mike" -- or someone like him -- sat next to me on the bus, I'd get up and move to another seat.

- My response is that labels are never helpful in an attempt to convince another of the logic and validity of one's own position. If you are trying to make a point, pass on information, or convince the person with whom you are speaking of a point, labels and derogatory language are never helpful.

--- Funny you should say that. Even though you have been far more verbose, smug and pompous than I have, it's exactly the point I was trying to make to Mike. Do you think he got it?

-If however you are trying to throw a tantrum, please take it elsewhere.

--- Like Mike, who wants to rid the Democratic Party of wingnuts like me, it's not up to you whether I go or stay. If you don't want to read what I write, it is you who will have to go elsewhere.

"And as for Shaheen's statement about Obama's drug usage, it's a legitimate issue that some people think is important."

Like many other Americans, Obama experimented with drugs as a college student, as did both of our two most recent presidents. He has never hidden this from anyone... and anyway, it was 25 years ago. This in no way disqualifies him to president. Those who think it does - "some people" - are looking for something to pin on him. It won't work.

--- I don't care whether it works or not. I agree that most people don't care whether a candidate used drugs in college. But some people do care, and labeling them as "racist" is a very crass way of attempting to silence them. If it wasn't "racist" when it was talked about with respect to Bush and Gore, then it's not racist where Obama is concerned,either.

"I doubt that he is a scientist or a software engineer. I don't believe he even rises to the level of 'former scientist or software engineer.'"

Why don't you ask him?

--- Because "Mike" is a person of zero interest to me. When people behave that boorishly, the behavior overshadows everything else. And as a general rule, people who have professional attainments are accustomed to exercising self-restraint in their public behavior.

-You are new to this forum, and excessively impressed with your ability to 'read' people, seems to me.

--- I'm not trying to "read" anybody. I'm saying that it's not acceptable to women readers to be insulted in the extremely personal sort of way that "Mike" has done, simply because they might be gay, old, wrinkled, or because they support a woman candidate -- all subsets of people whom "Mike" has made it clear he despises.

--- And the fact that you have been posting to the blog for longer than I doesn't give you any special rights. I hope that's perfectly clear.

- I don't agree with everything he says, and sometimes don't agree with much he says, but it never has occurred to me to cast aspersions on his abilities. He seems a nice and intelligent guy

---ROTFLMAO!

-with whom I sometimes agree on some things. Without knowing him better, I do not feel able to judge his ability with computers or science. It is curious that you do.

--- Again, I have no interest in what he claims are his skills. They are certainly overshadowed by his shortcomings.

"The point is that if people are going to post in behalf of Obama's candidacy , they should probably avoid anti-gay, and anti-women slurs."

-Of course they should, as should anyone posting on behalf of any candidate. In your zeal to denigrate Obama and his campaign, however, you forget that MikeB - as I said above - is NOT an Obama loyalist, but rather a Democrat unhappy with the prospect of Hillary as the nominee.

--- And why isn't Mike speaking for himself? Are you his mother?

- As am I. As are many of us. But I'm not convinced that he is guilty of these. (See above in re: YOUR use of the word 'lesbian.')

"As for dismissing your 'legitimate concerns' about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you have some"

I have many. And they are indeed 'legitimate.'

--- Again,that's nice. Suppose you talk about them instead of talking about me, or Hillary's supporters. I'm not a Democrat, by the way.

"but they seem to have gotten lost in all mike's BS about bolshevik wrinkled lesbians."

- No, I know exactly what they are, and they have nothing to do with MikeB. I do note that you use the word 'lesbian' once again.

---It would have been Mike's job to say what he meant, not yours -- unless you are his sock puppet. He didn't contradict me. His statements about women were saliently misogynistic. That is what I take issue with. I'm sure Hillary can do without the support of people like him; Obama can do without his support too, for that matter.

Chris - The Des Moines Register has a dismal record on endorsing the person who actually wins the caucus - so I would say it does not carry much weight or influence. They did not choose Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, or Gephardt in 1988 - instead they went with Edwards, Bill Bradley, and Paul Simon. Some say it propelled Edwards from 4th to 2nd place in 2004 - but Kerry jumped from a distant 3rd to 1st without their help. So much for that theory. The Boston Globe, on the other hand, has a much stronger track record for endorsing winners in NH. I am thrilled they chose Obama! I've also been reading on other sites today a remarkable statistic. Obama has more experience than Abraham Lincoln had when he became president in 1860! Both men were lawyers from Illinois - both served eight years in the Illinois State Legislature - but Lincoln served only one term in the US House of Representatives, from 1847-48, whereas Obama will have completed four years in the US Senate before he is sworn in as our next president!!

ebauersox - for the record, 'winngerald,' also a Clinton supporter, uses the word 'lesbian' in his 3:18 (December 16) post.
You then use it at 5:20 (12.16), 6:31 (12.16), 10:48 (12.17), and 1:46 (12.17).
And yes, I used it in my communication with you. MikeB does not use it once, despite your claiming twice that he has. (6:31 on the 16th, 10:48 on the 17th.)
Your support of Hillary does not speak well of her.

What's surprising about the Register picking Hillary is she voted for Iraq. She of the " if I knew then what I know now." They site her experience as a reason. What they should have looked at is her judgement. That's the quality a president needs. A president can appoint people with experience, when it comes time to make a decision, it's judgement that counts. But if the people in Iowa are as independent as the media makes them out to be, then the endorsement of The Register should matter little.

"MikeB -- if that's who mibrooks27 is -- used the word 'womyn', which is a synonym for 'lesbian.'"u

-I beg to differ. I have heard the word used by feminists who resent the inclusion of "-men" in the word "women." In the same category as "s/he" and "hisr."

"You need to read more, apparently."

-I have a degree in English and 15 years of professional experience as a writer in several capacities. I'm sure I have read sufficiently to hold an intelligent conversation on most topics (without claiming expertise in some or most). I work in publishing, and have also been a journalist, activist, and PR writer. I can rebut a logically weak argument such as yours without an intimate knowledge of feminist slang. What's more, you begin by saying "I ... hope that when you describe Hillary's supporters as 'womyn' ... you are not using that word as a synonym for 'lesbian.'" As far as I am aware, MikeB never confirmed that such was his intent, yet from then on you treat it as accepted fact simply because you want it to be true.

"And people are labeled stupid, drooling redneck women-haters, when their rhetoric about women candidates consists mainly of personal barbs such as degree-of-wrinkledness, age, and gender preference -- not just toward the candidate but toward all women who support her."

- You say this with such assurance. My response is that labels are never helpful in an attempt to convince another of the logic and validity of one's own position. If you are trying to make a point, pass on information, or convince the person with whom you are speaking of a point, labels and derogatory language are never helpful. If however you are trying to throw a tantrum, please take it elsewhere.

"And as for Shaheen's statement about Obama's drug usage, it's a legitimate issue that some people think is important."

Like many other Americans, Obama experimented with drugs as a college student, as did both of our two most recent presidents. He has never hidden this from anyone... and anyway, it was 25 years ago. This in no way disqualifies him to president. Those who think it does - "some people" - are looking for something to pin on him. It won't work.

"I doubt that he is a scientist or a software engineer. I don't believe he even rises to the level of 'former scientist or software engineer.'"

Why don't you ask him? You are new to this forum, and excessively impressed with your ability to 'read' people, seems to me. I don't agree with everything he says, and sometimes don't agree with much he says, but it never has occurred to me to cast aspersions on his abilities. He seems a nice and intelligent guy with whom I sometimes agree on some things. Without knowing him better, I do not feel able to judge his ability with computers or science. It is curious that you do.

"The point is that if people are going to post in behalf of Obama's candidacy , they should probably avoid anti-gay, and anti-women slurs."

-Of course they should, as should anyone posting on behalf of any candidate. In your zeal to denigrate Obama and his campaign, however, you forget that MikeB - as I said above - is NOT an Obama loyalist, but rather a Democrat unhappy with the prospect of Hillary as the nominee. As am I. As are many of us. But I'm not convinced that he is guilty of these. (See above in re: YOUR use of the word 'lesbian.')

"As for dismissing your 'legitimate concerns' about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you have some"

I have many. And they are indeed 'legitimate.'

"but they seem to have gotten lost in all mike's BS about bolshevik wrinkled lesbians."

No, I know exactly what they are, and they have nothing to do with MikeB. I do note that you use the word 'lesbian' once again.

aside of the sex scandals of the 90's, we had a pretty good economy while bill was president, and with him as an ambasador at large, i think we can gain confidence in the muslim world.

MikeBrooks -- First off, try and remember that I don't like Hillary Clinton either. I'm not trying to get you to vote for her, I'm just trying to talk about the GOP candidates, most of whom (though not all) are pretty damn scare, IMO.

Huckabee's positions on SS are insane. Funding SS through the purported "fair tax" is ludicrous, as is that idea generally. The net result, if you're at all interested, is a HUGE shifting of the tax burden onto the middle class. Unless you make more than 500k/year, I would seriously think twice before voting for him. If McCain supports raising the cap on SS taxes, that's news to me. In the WAPO on the issues page, he explicitly says he won't raise taxes. I'll concede, however, that McCain actually cares about the solvency of entitlement programs. I respect him for that. If he wasn't such a hawk on the Iraq war, I would actually feel fine if I woke up the morning after election day and found out he was president. But, of course, he IS an unrepentant hawk.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/john-mccain/#social-security

Again, I'm not trying to get you to vote for anyone my friend. I just think it's a mistake to view the GOP in a more favorable light than they deserve.

mibrooks27 --

I hope you do vote for a Republican. And if I might make a suggestion, you should probably vote for John "Mr. Nice Guy ...Not!" McCain, who is quoted by Arthur Schlesinger in his recently-published Journal, as having made a particularly stupid and crude lesbian joke about Hillary, Chelsea and Janet Reno.

That sort of "political thinking" would seem to be more your kind of thing,rather than tedious discussions about boring issues.

Every branch of the media has glossed over two brilliant candidates from the outset. And they are Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Clearly, they have more experience, knowledge and integrity than any candidate running. On both sides. Yet, the American Idol Presidential Election is getting closer, and the media continues to feed us their daily dose of the candidates with the deepest pockets and who are owned by special interests. The American voter has become pathetic when it comes to picking their leaders. They don't do their homework. They come to their "decision" of who to vote for on sound bites, magazine covers, or TV ads. Once again, the American voter will get what they deserve, and then complain about it later when things don't quite work out the way they had hoped. And America will sink deeper into its quagmire.

I'm still full of hope, and I pray everyday that the people of Iowa are listening and get it right.

If our country was in the middle of prosperity, and our economic picture wasn't bleak with the debt we've incurred (not to mention record high oil prices)...if we didn't have our brave men and women abroad spilling their blood and losing their lives...if we didn't have Armageddon going on in the Middle East, and possible turmoil in Pakistan (a nuclear power), not to mention tensions with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, and keeping our eye on what happens with our ally Israel. If there wasn't so much critical attention needed to this world and our own country, I wouldn't really care who we elect. But we are not in a stable place as a nation, and our trust and credibility have been severely damaged around the globe. There is a clear and intelligent choice to make as Americans...and that choice is Joe Biden. Unfortunately, it looks like America will fail once again as they cast their votes for their American Idol President............sigh....very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

bokonon13 -
Actually, MikeB -- if that's who mibrooks27 is -- used the word "womyn", which is a synonym for "lesbian."

You need to read more, apparently.

And people are labeled stupid, drooling redneck women-haters, when their rhetoric about women candidates consists mainly of personal barbs such as degree-of-wrinkledness, age, and gender preference -- not just toward the candidate but toward all women who support her.

And as for Shaheen's statement about Obama's drug usage, it's a legitimate issue that some people think is important.

I doubt that he is a scientist or a software engineer. I don't believe he even rises to the level of "former scientist or software engineer."

The point is that if people are going to post in behalf of Obama's candidacy , they should probably avoid anti-gay, and anti-women slurs.

As for dismissing your "legitimate concerns" about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you have some,but they seem to have gotten lost in all mike's BS about bolshevik wrinkled lesbians. In other words, until his most recent post, "mike" was content to substitute flatulence about women for real political differences with Clinton.

As a long time resident of Des Moines now living in metro Boston, it was fascinating indeed to see the attention paid the Register endorsement by the national media compared to the Boston Globe endorsement. Local political observers in Iowa have long noted the Register's history of endorsing candidates who fail to win in Presidential and other political matchups. The cynics' joke often is that a candidate gets a bump by NOT receiving the Register nod. Perhaps the cluster of east coast reporters lunching in downtown Des Moines were running out of story angles as they await January 3.

Republican men are dumber than a bag of rocks. They chearleaded this country into a useless war and trillions of dollars of debt to China. Democratic men are slightly brighter and at least they don't cheat as much on their taxes.

ebauersox, _Colin - If it sounds as if I am trying to convince myself to vote for a Republican, you are quite correct. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I expect to do exactly that. And, I assure you, there will be millions of liberals, genuine honest-to-god liberals, that are going through the same process now. For us, the corruption and greed of CLinton, coupled with the unfettered fanaticism of her followers, is something so awful to contemplate that we will vote against Democrats across the board, if that is what it takes to ensure her defeat or cripple her in the unlikely event she does win.

jimd, mark & others: I'll try and answer all your questions in a single comment, since it is so hard to for me to access "The Fix". The newspaper endorsements will help McCain, no doubt. The Lieberman endorsement, IMHO, will have the opposite effect in NH, and as pointed out by some Joe has turned most {I & D} voters against him, and only has the support of the far right wingers. This will probably negate, to some extent, the DMR endorsement in Iowa as well.

_Colin - Not true! Huckabee and McCain both advocate some sort of amnesty for the parents of childen born here. McCain has even advocated going beyond that.
As for SOcial Security, if you would take the time to do even the most cursory research, you would find that privatization IS NOT what either McCain or Hickabee propose:
From Huckabee's web site:
"Personalization of retirement funds, not privatization. (Oct 2007)
Replace payroll tax & fund Social Security with FairTax. (Sep 2007)
No Congressional pensions; give them same deal as citizens. (Nov 1992)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
Maintain federal funding of Social Services Block Grants. (Sep 1999)"

AS for John McCain, he proposed increased funding for Medicare and Medicaid coupled with more overview to prevent the current outrageoud fraud and abuse of the systems. He also proposes a national health care system that is pretty close to Clinton's current proposal, but with competitive bidding and cost controls. He is opposed to privitization of Social Security, opting for raising the income ceiling for which Social Security taxes apply (identical to Barak Obama's very sensible proposal).
I am not certain, but I believe I heard Fred Thompson making very similar proposals. The "lockstep Republican's" you are referring to are Romney and Bush. The other Republican's are all over the map on just about any issue you can name.

When I read that the Register women had endorsed Clinton, then I had an epiphany! I, too, have seen the light, at last! Hillary's vast right wing experience will allow her to lead the country smoothly as she hits the ground running. In fact, America will not even know what hit her, for the transition of power will be as if no transition had occurred at all.

From Day 1 of the second coming of the House of Clinton, everything will be ready to roll, and lock and load, and America can safely kick back and enjoy the latest sports of the day [it should be basketball season, right?].

From Hillary Day 1, we will have the same inspiring expansion of executive power and privilege, beyond all Constitutional boundaries, that President Bush-Cheney has extended. Hillary already has her "signing statement" stamps manufactured, ready to hit the ground stamping.

From Hillary Day 1, we can all enjoy the same unifying, non-partisan approach to politics that President Bush-Cheney has so generously given us during the last seven years.

From Hillary Day 1, we can have the same entertaining deceits, lies, and prevarications--by the press, that is, as they try to besmirch our noble leaders. As they have so falsely proven President Bush-Cheney to be of such a deceitful character, so will they falsely prove the same of Hillary [and Bill, lurking right behind her skirts...or someone's skirts].

From Hillary Day 1, we will sleep securely, all day long, in the knowledge that Corporate America is safe and strong, and that President Clinton-II will, like President Bush-II-Cheney-IA, be certain that we have no CEO left behind. The business of America is business, now more than ever, and only a president whom Corporate America allows to be president would be worthy to serve.

I could go on, but I'm sure the Hillary fans, whom I now so heartfully embrace, would be embarrassed if I kept gushing on so. God Bless America! [And God knows, she needs a blessing.] And God bless all you Hillary supporters who have so long endured all those unpatriotic, America-haters who have resisted her inevitability. Now I can turn my Pat-riot-ism to something that really matters--Go New England, 14-0 and counting!

Mikebrooks said: "Some of those ock step Republican's propose to privatize Social Security (Guliani, Romney) whereas others propose to raise the income cap subject to FICA taxes and others still propose to raise payroll taxes."

Mike -- I think you're wrong on this one. To my knowledge, NONE of the GOP nominees has provided any substantive proposal for addressing entitlements that even hints at the possibility of a tax increase. Indeed, the entire solution of all of the candidates appears to be privatization -- although Thompson has implicitly endorsed benefit cuts. I give him credit for his candor.

To your more general point that the GOP does not march in lockstep, I think you're wrong again. All of the GOP candidates, except McCain, have now adopted stringent enforcement only approaches to immigration -- in many instances abandoning previous positions to the contrary. Likewise, they all support the Iraq war and Bush's failed foreign policy vision, with Huckabee's recent criticism the only exception. These folks want to be GWB all over again. Vote for whoever you please, but have no doubt about that.

PS -- I'll grant you that Paul is different. Then again, he thinks 95% of the federal government is unconstitutional.

ebauersox -

in the 1st place, MikeB never used the word "lesbian." Do a search of this page - it's all you. To accuse someone repeatedly of something which is unproven is reminiscent of Shaheen's question to Obama about drugs. I was not originally part of this conversation, but can't avoid mentioning this. Also, if you are intent on being respected by others, you should avoid characterizing opponents as "grotesque, droolingly stupid, redneck woman-haters." Having never met MikeB in person, I can't say for sure, but that is not the impression that I have. I don't remember, but think he is a software engineer, or perhaps a scientist of some kind... hard to do that while you're drooling.

And he's not even an Obama supporter, at least not primarily. If I remember correctly, he favors Edwards. It's perhaps not that curious that a Clinton supporter would immediately seize the opportunity to attack the Obama campaign, using the juvenile language cited above, but it is I think revealing.

You are incorrect to dismiss so summarily the legitimate concerns many voters, myself included, have with Mrs. Clinton. You are equally incorrect and disrespectful to deliberately misrepresent the views of another poster in order to make cheap political points.

Full disclosure: I support Obama for the nomination, but I do not "Hate" Hillary. I simply do not see in her the kind of person for whom I hope to be able to vote. And yes, her campaign's unsubtle tactics, and those of her supporters, have been a cause of that. So what if she's a woman? Can the women's movement have succeeded at all if that's her key selling point?

ebauersox -

in the 1st place, MikeB never used the word "lesbian." Do a search of this page - it's all you. To accuse someone repeatedly of something which is unproven is reminiscent of Shaheen's question to Obama about drugs. I was not originally part of this conversation, but can't avoid mentioning this. Also, if you are intent on being respected by others, you should avoid characterizing opponents as "grotesque, droolingly stupid, redneck woman-haters." Having never met MikeB in person, I can't say for sure, but that is not the impression that I have. I don't remember, but think he is a software engineer, or perhaps a scientist of some kind... hard to do that while you're drooling.

And he's not even an Obama supporter, at least not primarily. If I remember correctly, he favors Edwards. It's perhaps not that curious that a Clinton supporter would immediately seize the opportunity to attack the Obama campaign, using the juvenile language cited above, but it is I think revealing.

You are incorrect to dismiss so summarily the legitimate concerns many voters, myself included, have with Mrs. Clinton. You are equally incorrect and disrespectful to deliberately misrepresent the views of another poster in order to make cheap political points.

Full disclosure: I support Obama for the nomination, but I do not "Hate" Hillary. I simply do not see in her the kind of person for whom I hope to be able to vote. And yes, her campaign's unsubtle tactics, and those of her supporters, have been a cause of that. So what if she's a woman? Can the women's movement have succeeded at all if that's her key selling point?

bhoomes,

The only way Giuliani stays on top is if Mitt and Huck remain in the race to split the social conservative vote. Should he win the nomination, a significant portion of those religious conservatives GWB relied on will either sit on their hands or vote for Dobson's third party candidate.

mibrooks27 -- It isn't the fact that you oppose Hillary Clinton that creates the impression that you are unbalanced; it the language you use and the reasons you give.

You seem to have forgotten that you called Clinton supporters lesbians and wrinkled old hags. That's got more to do with your personal fear and hatred of women than it has to do with Hillary Clinton or her record.

My comments are not thinly-veiled and they do not bash men in general -- they bash *you*, and you only, for behaving in the disgusting -- and pathetic -- manner I've described. Most men are better than that.

I don't know where you live, but speaking as a New Yorker, I think Hillary Clinton has been an excellent senator and has represented our (mostly Republican ) state very well.

To make what you seem to believe is some kind of valid point, you need to show how and where Hillary Clinton engages in male-bashing of any kind.

If you stick to the issues, and refrain from making nasty remarks about women, people won't accuse you of being a woman-hater. As it is, what you have managed to do in your so-called advocacy is create the perception that Obama supporters are grotesque, droolingly stupid, redneck woman-haters.

Despite the fact that you write "Your entire argument for her candidacy amounts to something like 'We've never had a woman President and it's abut time' ", I have made no argument at all for Hillary Clinton's candidacy, except to say that the fact that she has won the Des Moines Register's endorsement shows her skill in getting things done.

What I am saying is that if you are going to oppose Clinton, try to base your opposition on her record, and not on the looks, age and what you imagine is the gender preference of her supporters.

I will -- if you like -- make a case against Obama's candidacy, however. Anybody who underestimates the intelligence of voters by thinking he can persuade us that inexperience is preferable to experience, needs to return to law school, where sophistry is a way of life.

Claudia, Could you imagine a Pro Life candiate being at the top of the pack in the democratic primaries: Rest my case, until you guys show diversity of thought like us republicans do.

vbhoomes, goose-stepping aside (I think there are members of both parties with an ignominious claim to this), I think one reason many dems, myself included, dislike Lieberman is because:

He lost the primary, and instead of losing graciously, he acted like he was betrayed by voters - when in actuality, his views simply did not reflect theirs. That's democracy.

Then, since he felt the seat really belonged to him, he ran as an independent - and expected that democratic senators would support him for old-times sake - rather than support the winner of the democratic primary. He whined a lot about that.

OK, he won the general fair and square, but then he virtually blackmaied the democtatic leadership into giving him the Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee - since they needed him to caucus w/ democrats.

His stance on the war might be based on his principles, but his actions re: the election don't seem equally pricipled to me.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is set to get the backing of Iowa Rep. David Loebsack Monday, an endorsement that could give the Democratic presidential candidate a boost of momentum with less than three weeks until the state's caucuses.

Loebsack is slated to make the announcement in Des Moines later Monday.

The endorsement -- heavily courted by many of the presidential candidates -- gives Obama backing from two of the three Democratic Iowa congressmen. Rep. Bruce Braley announced earlier this month he was endorsing Obama, while Rep. Leonard Boswell said last week he is supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton."

I think this is far more significant than the Des Moines Register endorsement - politicians have groups of supporters they can mobilize to get people to the caucuses.

claudia - Ah, those lockstep Republican's! Of course Huckabee proposed to curb guest worker visas and outsourcing and proposed to exit Iraq. So does Ron Paul, come to think of it. Some of those ock step Republican's propose to privatize Social Security (Guliani, Romney) whereas others propose to raise the income cap subject to FICA taxes and others still propose to raise payroll taxes. Some want to round up and deport all illegals, others want to grant some form of amnesty to families with children born in the U.S. Huckabee is so pro education her was endorsed by Education Associations (teachers unions) all across the country, many of whom did so in direct opposition to the national NEA. Oh, those so lock step Republican's! Many of those Republican;s advocate more liberal, more rational, more beneficial and progressive policies that the leading Democratic nitwit Ms. Clinton.

ebauersox- Your posts are typical of the catch 22 of a lot of self described feminists. If people say they wont vote for Clinton, tey're somehow anti-women and suffer from some sort of psychological impairment. If they criticize radical feminism they are somehow a woman hater. The fact is, the people with the problem are you radical feminists. You post thinly veiled male bashing comments and justification of certain feminists demeaning men shows more than anything else that you blame men for some failure of your own, or that you were harmed by some male in the past. Hillary Clinton has inserted this sort of garbage into her campaign speeches, into her campaign, and has managed to cause many people to become convinced that she is the same sort of psychological mess and is entirely unsuited to be President or, even, a U.S. Senator. Your entire argument for her candidacy amounts to something like "We've never had a woman President and it's abut time". How intellectually bankrupt. She has no policies that I can determine. Her health care proposals amount to a $110 billion give-away to the private health care industry that does nothing to provide health care for most working people; especially younger workers forced to choose between health care and the rent. Her proposal to ensure the solvency of Social Security is simply a tax increase. Contrast this with Mr. Obama's plan to simply to raise the income cap on earnings that are subject to Social Security taxation. That would render Social Security solvent and is fairer. Ms. Clinton supports outsourcing. She went to India and touted her record of supporting this at a time when millions of jobs are disappearing as a direct result of this sort of insanity. She and her husband made heir personal fortune by investing in a firm that provides H1-B workers from China and India; that while nearly 30% of American engineers and computer programmers are out of work. She proposes to keep tax breaks for investors and businesses and the wealthiest 3%, to stay involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is, in fact, the same sort of train wreck that Bush-Cheney have been, just with the added burden of old guard feminist claptrap. She does not deserve the vote of people wanting change and I am confident that she will be soundly rejected. Every candidate running, from either party, would make a better leader for this country.

The Lieberman endorsement of McCain is interesting, b/c if the assumption that it helps McCain w/ Indies is correct, then in a convoluted way, I wonder if this actually helps Hillary?

I think that in NH, Indies have to choose between participating in the Reublican or Democratic primary. If support for McCain increases, and Indies vote in the Republican primary, this dilutes the potential support Obama, Edwards, Biden, etc. would get from independents. My guess is Hillary's support among Indies is limited - so their voting for McCain takes nothing away from her.

funny you should talk about goose-stepping, bhoomes, when every member of the R party votes in lockstep on every issue. funny things, that.

Lieberman could help McCain with the independants in NH but I doubt it because he's yesterday's politician. My guess is they will go heavily for Obama. I know a lot of dems do not like Lieberman because he's not a goose stepper like the rest of the non thinking knee jerk democrats. He's the intellectual's politician because he puts country ahead of party and actually thinks about the issues of the day without poll testing(Hillary) them 1st.

'The LAT fronts the second of its two-part series about Mitt Romney's business dealings and reveals the Republican presidential candidate used offshore tax shelters in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to help investors avoid paying taxes. '

is anyone suprised? the wealthy deadbeats who run this country. the middle class pays their taxes and supports the defense establishment, the wealthy deadbeats who don't care about their country can't be bothered.

From comments I've seen and heard, Lieberman is absolutely loathed by most Dems as a sellout and Cheney toady--worse than zell miller. He ran in CT during the primary as anti-war-- and then on the day he won flipped striaght back to being cheney's mouthpiece for war and more war. He cannot be trusted--and I thnk his endorsement only tarnishes McCain, whom I may not agree with but who still has some integrity, unlike Leiberman.

Hey CC, can you write about something beside Hillalry? I know you and the rest of the press want a catfight between her and Rudy, but we voters would like to make up our own minds.

lyle, I do not actually know what moves NH indies - so that was a guess based on regionalism. I thought a NH indie would be more like a CT indie than not. That seems to be CC's operating assumption.

lyle

Why do you think Lieberman's endorsement would hurt McCain with Republican primary voters? I would think it an asset. McCain is not going to get the votes of anti-war Democrats - the ones most vehement in their dislike of Lieberman. It will probably help with New Hampshire Republican primary voters.

lyle, I think the LL endorsement was timed for NH Indies, and cannot hurt McC b/c his entire hope is NH.

Again, thanx for your web digging - I looked at google in a cursory manner and saw that there was a supervising D attorney during the Watergate investigation of the same name and became perturbed. Colin's cite to the WaPo review was very good, and I have put the episode behind me.

JimD, I favor Biden over Dodd, too, but I had not read Dodd's position on Iraq as favoring precipitous withdrawal, a la Richardson.

Looking at his web page, I see his position stated more stridently than I have heard it in debate, but it still is not the Richardson call for total pull-out. He proposes most of the objectives you have eloquently backed -
force protection, training, and al quaeda ops. If he supported border integrity efforts, as well, I am guessing he would have lined up with your thinking.

'Democrats succeeded in reversing cuts sought by President Bush to heating subsidies, local law enforcement and Amtrak'

No matter who the Democratic candidate is, I iwll vote from he/she, because they represent the interests of those of us who are not wealthy. Take heating subsidies for instance. The oil companies are making record profits and heating oil costs triple this year what it did last. Here in the Northeast we've had a record number of snowstorms in fall [4 already and it's not winter till saturday] and sudden, record cold temperatures. Many people, especially the old and sick and poor, may well freeze to death this winter without heating subsides. We are the wealthiest nation, yet we seem to care the least about our own people.

OH, btw, for the Exxon Weathernut Moonbats, just so you know, when the globe warms a few degrees, it causes airstreams and ocean currents to shift, resulting in extreme weather changes, which include record cold shifts and extreme storms. It would be nice if Fox and other Exxon sympathizers could stop lying and trying to confuse people with this canard.

markinaustin: Have you seen the expected endorsement of Joe Lieberman for McCain today? IMHO, This will hurt McCain much more than it will help him in NH, and likely will diminish the DMR endorsement in Iowa as well. All candidates hope and try hard for these newspaper endorsements for they do have an impact.

to mibrooks27 -

You write as if "feminism" is some kind of secret dirty vice -- like misogynism or alcoholism. Speaking as a person who has worked for a major news organization that deals in fake polls, I don't think Clinton's drop in most of those polls matters very much.

As for posts like yours, people won't happily support a candidate who pretends to be above the fray -- like some kind of spaced-out flower child -- but whose partisans engage in the sort of coarse abuse that you do. If you seriously believe that posts like yours are causing damage to Clinton -- instead of the reverse -- the kindest thing I can say is that you have perceptual problems.

I notice that you haven't supplied any picture of Susan B. Anthony wielding an axe. Instead, suppose you give us some examples of the male-bashing by Hillary Clinton that you seem obsessed with.

Nobody is "getting rid" of me and my ilk -- I hope that's clear to you. You write, "Anyone sane is frightened half to death." I guess that means *you* don't have to worry. Personally, I'd like it if vulgarians such as yourself were to keep a lower profile, or at least not self-identify as Democrats. You make all of us look bad.

Surely, you can call yourself something else. There are lots of nice names in the DMS that would fit you perfectly.

zb95: Try getting your "FACTS" straight--Hillary DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. This has been a consistent cry from the "Hillary Haters" and PROVEN WRONG many times.

More comments on ELy, IA's love for Perry:

"Just when you think you live in the dumbest state with the dumbest ELECTED people, out pops this letter from Craig Nelson of Iowa."

"...it'll just be another case of Rick Perry making George W. Bush look good."

On a lighter note, Rick Perry, Gov. Goodhair of the 39% plurality victory, so impressed self-described conservative Craig Nelson of Ely, IA, that Nelson extolled Goodhair's virtues in a letter to the Austin American-Statesman yesterday. Today's comments are hilarious, e.g.:

"Seal off every interstate out of Iowa and don't let Perry leave that state. This is the best oppurtunity we've had to get rid of the 39% governor since the majority apparently doesn't rule in Texas, due to the lack of a runoff election."

I see a lot of hysterical pro and anti Hillary posts this morning and zouk hasn't even arrived.

Let's face it, newspaper endorsements have very limited influence in this day and age.

I agree with Mark, that if the DMR wanted to endorse the candidate best prepared to lead they would have gone with Biden (my choice) or Dodd. Personally, I cannot support Dodd given his support of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

'Fox is a legitimate news network' -- oh please, dave, it's too early in the morning for jokes. Fox is owned and funded by a hardright tycoon, and was founded and is still run by a repubican strategiest. It's whole purpose from the beginning was to act as a mouthpiece for radical rightwingers, and that's what it does, and all it does. To pretend otherwise is just laughable.

I feel sorry for all the pavlovian hillary hating. The vitriol, the violence, the fear and loathing of women. what a sad country this is. Rove has done a great job of dividing us beyond recognition.

It seems like the way in which this selection was made is the same sort of closed door deals that lead us into war in Iraq...its the same mindset...which is percisely why we need a new way of thinking...this country can't afford to ignore Obama... http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

HRC got the endorsement because she worked hard,was persausive, and earned the endorsement.

everything else is sour grapes.

The DMR endorsement of Ms Clinton boggles the mind. There is no legitimate explanation for their endorsement of Hillary Clinton. She is clearly not the best candidate for Iowa, not even close.

Each candidate makes a case for her/himself on the campaign web page. The external case depends on what the observer values and that should be stated honestly.

For example, I value foreign policy vision, dedication to transparency in government, plain speaking, experience, and an understanding of the Constitutional limits of power. Character, if I am given to know it, could trump all else. All candidates say they would share my values. But they do not all approach from the same directions that I do. For example:

Ron Paul's avid supporters love him for the list of propositions I raised, but I do not. I am more "inspired" by McCain, Biden, Dodd, and, perhaps, Obama than I am by HRC. This would not detract from a well reasoned DMR endorsement that conceded that her vision was most in line with that of editorial board.

MarkinAustin: It is a very recent picture from the campaign trail and indicates that Ms Clinton may not be up to the task. This is significant. Campaigning is very tough and if she is tired already I am afraid she won't be able to make it through to the homestretch.

zb95, we all age. Maturity has its own advantages. When you posted the photo you went over the top, IMHO.

Here is a recent picture of Ms Clinton clearly showing the strain on her face job:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071215/capt.ead497bd299642c7bfb32a642df666e9.clinton_2008_nhjc110.jpg?x=262&y=345&sig=0AEv1_EBQ8_u8wQLhtn5vQ--

lyle and FemaleNick, HRC's regular supporters here, are both correct to point to her years of service. One can make a strong case for her. The problem is not that DMR endorsed her - it is that DMR argued that she was best prepared to LEAD. From its criteria, Biden [or Dodd] should have won the endorsement.

An endorsement that argued that she was well prepared to serve, that her priorities most closely fit the DMR's, and that she had surrounded herself with the best and the brightest, would have been internally consistent.

And the DMR endorsement has always been a boost in the past. It has been credited with helping Edwards to his surprise second place showing in 2004, for example.

What Chris fails to mention is that reports from field indicate Hillary is tired, worn-out, losing her edge, getting impatient, angry, bitter and simply p*ssed-off that America does not bow down before and annoit her Queen of the Democratic party. Meanwhile Obama is flying high just now hitting his stride. If she is tired already how is she going to handle a general election campaign? I think Hillary is simply too old for the kind of stuff now. Maybe 10 years ago, but now at her age its too late.

Ms Clinton has done nothing but play dirty politics since her numbers began to slide. Her campaign has tried to bring down Obama with all sorts of wild baseless attacks such as: 1) he is corrupt and has a slush fund; 2) he is obsessed with being president which started in kindergarten; 3) he is too liberal and is hiding his true beliefs; 4) he is a closet radical Muslim intent on destroying America; 5) he is a drug addict and drug dealer. Yet, the DMR rewards this with an endorsement. Pathetic.

The DMR article states "The choice, then, comes down to preparedness". So 8 years of having tea and crumpets with wives of foreign leaders has prepared her for being president? I think not. Did they forget that she voted for the Iraq war and was a Bush Iraq war cheerleader for years? She also voted to back Bush on the bogus Iran resolution. Does that sound like she is prepared for anything?? She only floats with the political winds. This election is about integrity, honesty, straightforwardness and hope, none of which Ms Clinton offers much of. The DMR is wrong, very wrong on this endorsement.

How on earth could The DMR possibly select Hillary Clinton?!? She offers nothing but more of the same. She represents what many hate most about politics. Half of this country despises her and growing. Many in her own party will never vote for her. Obama has inspired the people of Iowa and all across America. He offers hope, integrity, vision, passion and possibly a chance to bring this country back together again. Hillary Clinton will only divide us further. Is that what the DMR wants? Sad.

Never has being First Lady been seen as
a qualification to be President unless
you live in Argentina or Alabama.
Hillary's experience in Washington makes
her more partisan, more divisive and less
qualified to be President. Obama's
experience, judgement, leadership is
superior. Remember: he voted against the
war.

So Traitor Joe has struck again! Joe-mentum, the "lifelong Democrat" is endorsing anti-choice, anti-tax, pro-war John McCain for president!! Tell me again why Connecticut Democrats should've nominated this jerk last year? We need him like we need another Zell Miller. I can't wait til we win more Senate seats so he can officially admit the Republican status he's been practicing for years.

And the inexplicable Hillary express is given yet more steam. Thanks Chris! Will tomorrow's blog be about Senator McCain and how he won the Register's endorsement, and the Globe's and Senator Lieberman's...

Don't hold our breath, right?

As a 58-yr-old who worked many frozen hours for Howard Dean, one of my frustrations was his followers... They didn't understand politics. So it was like having a rugby player think he could play football.

This is a HUGE endorsement.

When Obama thought he had it, it was a huge endorsement.
Now, when Obama doesn't have it, suddenly, the DMR board is a bunch of losers and, oh, they voted for Clinton because they're a bunch of women as well.

Congratulations to Senator Clinton.
She's going to fight every moment for this nomination, and anyone who thinks she is a quitter just is not facing reality.
Go, Hillary!

Big whoopee, the never endorse the winning candidate. Edwards in 2004, Bradley in 2000.

People are tired of the Clintons and the Bushes.

Your logic is flawed.

You write: "... since 1980 the Register has not endorsed a single winning candidate. Sure. But you'd rather have the Register endorsement than not."

WHY?

You don't have to be a "Clinton detractor" to point out a fact. Perhaps your argument should be "this newspaper is due to get one right!"
Let's hope not...Bush/Clinton fatigue
OBAMA 08!

matt aherns: You forgot to mention Al Gore turned his back on Bubba, added a slap in the face to Bubba again by selecting then Dem Joe Lieberman as his VP, a harsh critic of Bubba, this went a long way in putting GW in The WH, and many feel simular results may happen if we fail to nominate Hillary as our choice for the 08 General.

matt-aherns: You forgot to mention Al Gore turned his back on Bubba and added a slap in the face by choosing his harshest critic, then Dem Joe Lieberman for his VP, who is supposed to endorse McCain later today. For all you "Hillary Haters" I "Listen for what you do say, not for only what you don't say, as well." Many Dems still think this was a major factor in putting GW in the WH, and if we fail to nominate Hillary, a simular thing could happen.

Personally, I can't believe we're wasting time discussing a newspaper endorsement from Des Moines. I tried to explain the logic of the American primary system to my Austrian wife. She's still trying to figure out why Iowa and New Hampshire matter in anything, let alone politics.

Let's move up the Guam primary to New Year's Day and really have some fun.

If there are independents who are still sitting on the fence at this late stage of the campaign, a newspaper endorsement is not going to help them set their mind. First of all very few people nowadays looks at the newspaper. They either get the news from TV or through the internet. There are ample negative news already out there about Hillary. Whatever the newspaper has to say will not be read that much. Just a few minutes ago I googled Clinton, and I read how the Clinton's are using tax shelters in Caymen islands to avoid paying taxes. Think about electing somebody who with her husband do not pay tax, and use loopholes to stash away money in Caymen islands. Now do you think they are doing it alone. They have friends like Norman Hsu everywhere who get a kickback for helping the Clintons with offshore financial dealings. No more Clinton in the white house.

The Des Moines Register must be run by intellectual pygmies.

I have assumed that much time was spent by the editor(s) to craft a world shattering editorial. Well, if I am right, it must be said that they missed the boat. They have produced unconvincing drivel which seems to be the lot of editorial writers. They have drawn unsupported conclusions which puts them among 12 year olds.

If Iowans want to play 'follow the Register' then they must be a bunch of lightweights.

If the Register had supported Senator Obama instead of Hilary would Iowans have lamely switched their minds off and queued up to vote as they are told to do so. I doubt it.

I have often thought that editorialists are lightweights who produce articles that are a waste of every one's time.

If Iowans are as dull-witted as the Register and Hilary are assuming then we should expect them to back another candidate equal to the calibre of George Bush.

The Register displayed remarkable clarity in it's analysis of the three Democratic front-runners, and rightly in my opinion, endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I have long believed that Hillary is an extremely smart person. She specialized in child health issues and has made significant contributions to women's issues as well.She made key contributions to SCHIP. I do not see it in the profiles of the other candidates.She also has eight years experience in the White House and Washington D.C., and a few more in the Senate. She is a moderate politician and has a clear vision for the future. She represents the Democratic Party which seperates state from church, a big plus for me. The Republican platform does not support agnostic and atheist individuals who form a significant percentage of America's voting age population. The Republican Party is politically extremist and also believes that Christianity is the only true religion. By doing so, it excludes all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and others whose religions are equal. The Republican Party, despite it's claims is intolerant towards legal immigrants. This is evident from the Party's voting record during the recent debate on the immigration bill which failed. While a US citizen should not try to support illegal immigrants entering the country(every US citizen is bound to this by law), the lawmakers in Congress owe it to America to find a practical solution to immigration issues. The Republicans have made no effort and in fact blocked all solutions.

I followed Hillary's voting during the immigration bill and found it was responsible. I do not buy any of the objections of Hillary's critics,or see a better candidate. She has been tried and tested in public life. If America wants to vote for a woman President, this is a good time.No one knows when the next chance will come.But I don't care about it. The best Democratic candidate should be nominated.

Obama is also a candidate from a minority.I don't care about it(I am from a minority too). He has little experience. I am concerned about the character issue as well.Every naturalized US citizen must prove that his moral character is good. That means not being a habitual drunkard, not using banned substances etc.I do not think raising objections on this count is negative politics. A US President must be held to a higher standard than the common citizen. While Hillary is not the Pope, her record is entirely clean. It is impossible to predict how Obama will stand up to the demands of the White House, however good a speaker he may be. I don't see any significant achievement in his record.

All in all, the Register did not err in placing it's bet on Hillary Clinton, in my opinion

Should Hillary lose, the Clinton campaign should not be able to get away with blowing off the defeat as "expected". No, she loses Iowa and she fails.

So Bill puts on the full court press and gets his way. A spouse campaigning for a candidate is OK but a former president husband throwing his weight around is not a good sign for the candidate. It shows her weakness. Are we to expect that if there is a national crisis that Bill will take over then too? Who will be president? Is Bill running for a third term?

And should we be putting at least some blame at the foot of Bill Clinton for the past 7 years of Bush? Any changes he made for the positive did not last and he couldn't even get his successor elected. His time as past. Take Magic Johnson and Barbara Streisand and go back to the 1990s; the rest of us want to move on.

Experience?
Compared to Joe Biden? That's hysterical!
Other than be first lady, what has she done? And what did she accomplish as first lady? Even Laura Bush accomplished more than Hillary did as first lady.

Thank goodness this endorsement doesn't mean a thing, and that Iowans are able to make up their own minds.

Hi Chris,

In all honesty, I don't have much faith in hillary past Iowa or N.H.... I still remember the Clinton White House disgrace. I want change, not more the same of slick willy.

I'm not endorsing anyone, and I'd vote whomever is chosen for Democratic Candidate. But I'd prefer a new face.

FWIW.

-Chuck

Are there any men who work in the Register's editorial department? Here's who they list:

Laura Hollingsworth
Carolyn Washburn
Carol Hunter
Linda Lantor Fandel
Rox Laird
Andie Dominick

and support staff
Susan Curry
Sandy Walter
Jennifer Miller

It's possible they aren't all women but I doubt you find other paper's editorial staffs that dominated by women. In a world where identity politics is constantly paying attention to what is called under representation, is it just political correctness not to take notice of the gender of those who picked the one women candidate?

Lets address the "Experience" issue that is brought up so much. Since I am the oldest {From the start} and most often heard from Hillary supporter here on this blog. I am almost sure I have never stressed her "Experience" in the Govt. as an asset. The main thing I stress is what she has done over the course of her lifetime, including failures as well as successes. Children, Elderly, Education, Health Care, Civil Rights, and Poor Folks in general, among others, are things she has worked for all her life. No one has the "Experience" to be POTUS unless they have served in that office, and last time I checked none fit that criteria. I spent a little time checking for other newspaper and magazine endorsements and found very few for all the candidates combined. Remember, this will mostly take place about a month or so before the primary in each of the states. Look for a whole bunch next month.

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many, many years, George W. Bush. The worst President in American History.Thank you Des Moines Register -- I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many, many years, George W. Bush. The worst President in American History.Thank you Des Moines Register -- I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many many years, George W. Bush. Thank you Des Moines register I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

My man was passed over and last night I felt terrible, but I awoke this morning and realized he was spared the curse of the Des Moines Register. They have picked only one winner in many many years, George W. Bush. Thank you Des Moines register I've now got renewed hope and encouragement the best man is going to win -- Joe Biden -- the intelligent choice for President 2008!

This "coveted" endorsement will have little to no impact for HRC--if anything it hurts her campaign because it *galvanizes* the other campaigns to work harder and garner those last undecided caucus goers. The integrity of the DMR has been going downhill for awhile--Iowans like me generally find the journalism lacking and laughable (kinda like this endorsement).

Please quit with this HRC 'experience' business. What she has is *invented* experience, opportunities she has had were either given to her by Billary or came about as a result of years of being first lady in Arkansas or the White House. I'm sure she's great at hosting dinners and helping designers at christmas!

Remember: without Bill, there wouldn't be a Hill!

rahaha, nothing ruins the conversation like a little racism. Congratulations on seizing the opportunity to speak for the pre-evolved.
can you hear me back there in the 19th century?

Enough HRC bashing. Time to even the score. Obama looks like a chimp, doesn't he?

Why isn't aptitude never stressed as a necessary attribute in this campaign? I keep hearing about candidates' personality, but I want intellect first and foremost. Look at what we have now in Dubya. What more proof do we need that high intelligence is absolutely critical going forward? Someone help me out. PLEASE.

The Register should be boycotted. The newspaper should be forced to run out of business, at least, in Iowa. They dared to endorse the most well known warmongers on both sides, when Iowa has expressed more concerns about Iraqi war's immediate end than almost all other states. The newspaper should be boycotted since now on. That is what they deserved.

HRC is from the Lieberman wing of the party. Will never vote for her! Smart choice is Biden!

Hillary has my vote just to pizz off you morons that write such garbage. Why do you think she would "destroy" this country that's on the verge of being destroyed now?
She tried the first time to get universal healthcare for all Americans and got railroaded by the repubs and big pharms,you know,the ones everyone says that's in her pockets. She has the interests of this country ahead of the republican self-interests and you know it. She's trying to do what's right for her homeland,not pillage it like now. And as for Bill, enough of the intern jokes,it's old and not even funny anymore. I suppose you like when the repubs came in and stole the surplus he was able to achieve,you remember,back when the government was sending states money back. It's about having the right/competent people doing the job,not some chritian school flunky. To all of you obama lovers,what will you think when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are put in positions of power? Don't think it won't happen.

colin and lyle - thanx.

markinaustin: I used Yahoo search and found Jerry Zeifman to be a writer for Newsmax.com, A far right wing publication, and it only took about five minutes to see he is also against "The Speaker of The House of Representatives." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, among other Dems. Trying to sell some books, shame on you.

Mark -- I don't have any personal info on Zeifman's letter, but a quick internet search seems to indicate the guy has made a second career out of being the self-proclaimed democrat that bashes other democrats. He seems to write a regular column for newsmax, for example, in which he's defended Coulter and slammed the clintons. Doesn't mean what he wrote here is wrong, but hurts his credibility in my book.

Also, this Post review of his book on Watergate -- in which he levels the same charges -- seems legitimately skeptical to me. Again, this is just what I found through some quick searches, so perhaps not helpful. At any rate, here's the WAPO link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm

Lieberman to endorse McCain. Shouldn't McCain and not HRC be the news? He's got endorsements by The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and now Leiberman. Could it be a better week for him?

markinaustin: There appears to be a problem posting for I have tried several times over the past couple of days and have to sign in several times to get a comment posted. This letter/article you posted cannot be verified one way or the other, most of these people are now dead, and it appears this guy doesn't like Hillary going back many years, so my guess is, not credibale.

To vwcat:

Newspapers receive angry letters and phone calls all the time. One of my children is a reporter who has been assigned to cover one of the Democratic candidates for the presidency. And she is constantly barraged with correspondence excoriating her for favoring this candidate, and equally as much for not favoring him enough.

When people accuse a paper of bias, what they are really saying is they are angry that the paper does not share their own bias.

I'm guessing that the folks at the Des Moines Register have been there and done that and don't give a hang about the letters and phone calls -- as they shouldn't.

Quite often, such a letter-writing, telephone calling (and email posting) response has been orchestrated by overzealous campaign workers. If they are going to do this kind of thing, they should advise their volunteers to have better manners. Some of the response I've been seeing to yesterday's endorsement appears to come from people who have taken leave of their senses.

ebauersox - Believe me, the web is *FILLED* with posts just like mine. It is the main reason Clinton is dropping like a rock in the polls. People have known for quite some time about her feminism, but they are currently reading a lot of the snarkey garbage being posted by other feminists. The sort of bigoted, male bashing exhibited by her supporters is what we can expect from her Administration. Anyone sane is frightened half to death. Couple that with the various crooked business deals, the underhanded dealings she has always been partisan to, the illegal campaign donations, her anti-worker, pro-outsourcing ties, an her boat has left her standing on the dock. Thank God she has zero chance of being elected. After this election, the publicity ought to get enough people in NY aware of her that she is gone from the Senate, too. We have too many nut jobs in politics as it is now, beginning with Bush and the Republican's bailing out like rats from a sinking ship. We need to do thorough job of house keeping and dump the Democratic crooks, too. Now, if there was just some way we could rid the Democratic Party of wing nuts like you and your ilk.....

Lyle, you may remember that months ago I posted that Thompson and HRC both began their careers deeply involved in the Watergate investigation, and I thought that was a positive for them. Then the WaPo wrote that Thompson may have leaked committee staff work to Nixon. That story diminished Thompson in my eyes.

I really want to know if this letter is credible. I have posted it at "Bench Conference" as well. There are ex - Justice folks around who would know.

I do not intend to quote it widely.

to mibrooks27:

Although she was a member of the Daughters of Temperance, Susan B. Anthony abandoned that movement to concentrate on Women's Suffrage. Since you have asserted that the most famous pictures of Anthony show her destroying distilleries with a hatchet, suppose you provide a link to one of them. Actually, the person who is associated with using a hatchet to destroy saloons and distilleries was Carrie Nation.

As for the rest of your diatribe, people who call Hillary Clinton supporters "lesbians" and "wrinkled old hags" deserve to be trashed.

And I certainly hope that lots of undecided voters are reading your posts. Because I suspect that no thinking person would want to belong to the same subset as you, whether it calls itself "poor, mistreated men" or "Obama supporters."

I don't see anything resembling bigotry in Hillary Clinton's behavior. As I see it, what teeters at the edge of bigotry is when Mr. Obama screams "racism" any time his behavior is criticized or his personal history is questioned.

Chris, I bet the DMR editorial board is regretting their caving into the Clinton's arm twisting campaign today.
At their online site there are pages and pages of angry people writing in and complaining of the endorsement of clinton. Rather than work for HRC, this endorsement has set of a bomb with people really ticked off at the paper.
The editor was on Washington Journal this morning as got all ca