McCain isn't even competing there. What a weird endorsement.

It's a huge vote of "no confidence" in the Republican candidates.  The Des Moines Register essentially picked "none of the above" on the GOP side.

this might have for Clinton. Being endorsed alongside someone considered to be increasingly irrelevant may not be a good thing. People may say that the Des Moines Register is stuck in the past.

They could have picked who they felt was most competent.  It doesn't have to be a cynical vote of no confidence.

Like me, the Des Moines Register believes that John McCain is by far the most competent and qualified Republican to be president.  The rest of the Republicans?  Not so much.

Why did the Washington Post put its article about the Des Moines Register endorsement of Hillary Clinton on page 4 this morning?  I bet if the Register had endorsed Obama, that would have been on page 1.  Also, why isn't anyone in the media doing stories about how Oprah's endorsement of Obama doesn't seem to have moved his poll numbers much at all?  That seems pretty significant as well.      

Who can say what would have happened if Obama got the endorsement, because he didn't.  But if he had, there would certainly be a case for putting that story on the front page.  One, it would represent an upset, and  it feeds into their love of the horse race.  Two, it would fit nicely into a new narrative that the world has changed and now Obama is a contender versus the old narrative of Hillary the Juggernaut is the presumptive nominee.  Hillary getting it feeds into that old narrative.  And that story had its run of the papers for months.  Thus, it was a page 4 story.  =)

On the Oprah effect, all I have heard is discussion about that.  You can't shake a stick without hitting a story about Oprah on the trail with Obama.  Maybe it's not in today's paper, but just wait.

is a great experience to encounter and RK certainly supplies that for me. BUT what I really enjoy is your unquestionable loyalty to Gov. Kaine. Because he endorsed Obama you all seem to follow in his foot steps, never questioning his judgement. And the poll of whom you will vote for, stresses that.

The Des Moines is completely right. Hillary has the best qualifications, experience and will fight the hardest for the American people. Obama will be a great candidate in 2016 but for now he lacks so so much. His absent votes on the Senate Floor for some critical bills proves my point. Where was his voice when the vote about Iran happened? He did not even show up to vote and then tries to use Hillary vote against her. That exchange at the debates sounded like George Bush.

And if any one thinks he is going to change how Washington does business they are in for a big surprise. How is he going to get rid of all the lobbyists? Looking at Washington and the real problem, it is the Lobbyists and if anyone thinks they can throw money out of Washington is completely stupid and does not deserve to be President.

That would be like shutting down our economy.

Oh, you say he will change the rules. Fat chance.  

"Unquestionable loyalty to Gov. Kaine?"  Here are just a few areas where we at RK have disagreed with Tim Kaine the past 2 years:

1. His signing of the estate tax repeal was dead wrong.
2. His change of position on the Tysons Metro tunnel was a big mistake.
3. His support for offshore drilling -- wrong.
4. His signature on a reregulation bill written by, of, and for Dominion Power.
5. The abuser fees.
6. The overall transportation "monstrosity," as we called it dozens of times.
7. His opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

Hell, Eric even wrote a diary called "Razing Kaine".

So much for "unquestionable" (7th grade English teacher comment: you mean "unquestioning" or "unquestioned," I believe) loyalty to Tim Kaine.

Now, as far as the Democratic presidential race is concerned, a few points.

1. We have remained, by and large, completely neutral in the race.  

2. Personally, i supported Al Gore and Wes Clark, but neither ran.  

3. I will strongly support WHOEVER is the Democratic nominee, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich (who I think is a bit batty) and Mike "Grandpa Simpson" Gravel (who is completely batty).

4.  The poll of RK readers is not scientific, and I'm going to let it run for a while, but right now John Edwards is leading.  Last time I checked, Edwards wasn't the guy Tim Kaine endorsed.

Now, you were saying?

is not totally you Lowell, although you deserve most of the credit for this on going blog. Yes, I know RK is not endorsing anyone and that is a good. It is smart to wait till after the primary at least.

My comments were directed at some of the other responses, whom ever they are and their politics.

Keep the humor everyone, that is the lighter side of politics. The laughs were good and I still believe I know quite a bit of what is going on for a 72 year old.

 

but thanks for informing me! :)

I needed a laugh today. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.  

I have read part of the endorsement and it basically came down to Clinton being more experienced than Obama (from what I read).  I just don't get where this idea comes from.  Clinton has only been in the Senate four years longer than Obama.  Obama actually has more elected experience than Clinton does.  He was in the Illinois legislature for seven years.  Combined with his Senate experience, Obama has ten years of public office experience compared to seven for Clinton.  Prior to 2000, Clinton was not elected to anything.  If she wants to include her time as First Lady then she needs to come out and say it.  She also needs to explain what she did as First Lady, policy wise, that deserves admiration.  Her health care proposal comes to mind but what did that get us?  It was a failed policy that contributed to Democrats losing Congress and being in the minority in the House for over a decade.  I am not bashing her I just don't get where all this talk of "experience" is coming from.

relevant "experience" for the job of President.  For instance, how about someone who served four terms in the state legislature, one undistinguished term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and ran a failed race for U.S. Senate?  (That would be Abraham Lincoln)  How about someone who never had been elected to public office, then served 1 year in the U.S. Senate? (that would be Jim Webb if he was running for President -- or vice president -- now)  How about...

Anyway, the point is that there area lots of different kinds of experience; it's up to the voters to decide whether they think John Edwards one term in the U.S. Senate (and years as a trial lawyer), Barack Obama's 3 years in the U.S. Senate (plus experience in community organizing and the Illinois state legislature), or Hillary Clinton's 7 years in the U.S. Senate (plus her work for children and families, health care, etc.) is better suited for the challenges our nation is now facing.  

Or maybe they prefer the former mayor of New York City (no national experience whatsoever), another former governor of Arkansas (most famous for losing a lot of weight), the former governor of Massachusetts (who has done complete 180's on many of his positions from those days).  We'll see.

but I am just not getting the impression that others are following your lines of reasoning.  The general narrative seems to be that Clinton has the most substantive experience, period.  I don't really care who claims to have the most political "experience."  I just think the Clinton camp. and the media need to stop framing her as the most qualified candidate without clarifying their standards.  I do not see anything in her political career that warrants putting her on a peddle stool of experience.  My position has less to do with who I support (Richardson & Obama) and more to do with what I see as an unfair characterization of her being the most competent of the candidates to hold office.  Like I said, I don't have a problem with the claim so long as it is clear what objective criteria they are basing it on.  On this, in my opinion, the media, Clinton, and her supporters have failed.

Democrats consider her time as first lady to be very relevant experience. I somewhat agree.

has been more trashed and beaten down by the Republican Party more then Hillary Clinton. Here years with the health care issue and the trashing of her is an experience not a single candidate running for the Presidentcy has endured. The only other candidate who comes close is John McCain in 2000 from Bush and Rove. There are other smaller issues of trashing, but those stick out right now.

Yet after the trashing they endured, both are back fighting. To me that is the mark of true leadership, to have others find your weaknesses and to "Rise above them" and display greater courage.

Those experience will carry them far with all the other foreign leaders in this world and their cut throat methods.  

Liberals won't give up on their boy, "moderate" John McCain.  Have they paid any attention to his desperate pandering to the right over the last eight years?  I guess he's the best of a sad bunch on the GOP side, but to me this is just another sign that the David Broder crowd is still convinced the Myth of the Nonpartisan Hero is alive and well.

for over two years have been saying frankly that they expect the Democratic ticket will be Clinton for President and Obama for Vice-President. Never mind how they get along, or don't. Sort of like John F. Kennedy making LBJ his Vice-President despite their mutual rivalry and distaste for each other.

Think about it: would Clinton-Obama be a helluva good ticket?  Or would it inspire every bigot and tentative racist and conservative misogynist to hotfoot it to the polls to vote against them (and there are a LOT of such bigots and misobynists alive and well in the US of A).

It will be interesting to see the impact of the Register's editorial this morning of Clinton.  But my gut reaction when I first read it is that it won't help Clinton too much.  The basis for their endorsement is experience, and that is the basis for her whole campaign as well.  But according to polls out of Iowa, voters their side with change over experience, which is what has caused Obama's assendance in the polls in Iowa the last three weeks.    So, in some ways, the editorial is just reinforcing the wrong message for her, and pointing out that she is the candidate of the status quo and politics as usual.

And even though the Boston Globe endorsement of Obama is good news, the fact that they endorsed McCain could cause Obama some problems.  Independents are backing Obama by 2 to 1 over Edwards and by bigger margins over Clinton.  McCain routed Bush among independents in NH in 2000.  If the Globe endorsement makes some independents take a second look at McCain, that could end up hurting Obama.  I don't this this will necessarily happen, as independents are furious with Bush over the Iraq war and McCain has been Bush's cheerleader in the Senate on Iraq since 2002, but it is a possibility.  Polls in NH show that more than 60% of independents are planning to vote in the Dem., primary.  

Anyway, that's my take on all of this - it will be fascinating to watch all of this unfold over the next couple of weeks.      

I think y'all know the way to NLS.  One could argue that both the Huckabee and Obama surges may be over for now, if one takes credence in Rasmussen's daily national polls.  (Of course, polls in different states have different volatilities.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Hillary has a bigger lead than she did on November 30.  Huckabee has been flat for about ten days.  (The numbers for the GOP candidates are so spread out it looks like "none of the above" would poll higher.)

I have no dog in the Dem primary fight -- any of the top ones would be better than any of the GOP candidates, and I'd be happy and proud to support them.

National polls are meaningless at the point.  The only polls that counta are the state polls in IA, NH, NV amd SC.  And those in NH, NV and SC are going to change based on what happens in IA as well.

The other endorsement of interest today is McCain's endorsement by Lieberman.

Why didn't Lieberman endorse Obama, given that Obama endorsed Lieberman over Lamont?

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...

When Obama endorsed Lieberman, he was still a member of the Democratic Party. That's not the same as backing a Republican when there's 8 Democrats to choose from like Lieberman's doing now. And why on earth are you singling out Obama? Who did Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd or Joe Biden endorse in early 2006?

Your comment is ridiculous.

Ned Lamont got a boost Thursday from one of the Democratic party's brightest rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message to his Connecticut supporters urging them to rally behind Lamont's challenge to three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...

Lieberman is still a Democrat, for whatever that's worth.  The first Post article on the current endorsement says "Lieberman crosses the aisle ..."

But apparently Lieberman was Obama's mentor.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.

 That's from the first Boston.com article.

If there was a mentor-pupil relationship, why wouldn't Lieberman support him?  As I've stated elsewhere, I have no favorites in the nomination battle.

PM, Obama endorsed Lamont during the fall elction in CT.  In addition to campaigning for him, the Obama campaign sent out 5,000 emails to supporters urging them to support Lamont as well as contributing $5,000.00 to his general election campaign, which is why Lieberman did not endorse him.

Interesting to note that Clinton, campaigning for Lieberman, defended Lieberman's Iraq war stance, even though Clinton said several weeks ago that he had been against the Iraq war from the get go.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

The insider was Tim Tagaris, whose bio you can see here.  http://www.mydd.com/story/2006...

Very few of the national Dems come out looking well.  Obama certainly does not, from that person's view.  Hillary does, but Bill does not.  (Did Bill and Hill make a deal secretly, so Hillary came out strong for Lamont but Bill would mend fences with Joe?) Kerry was wonderful, as was Wes Clark and Ted Kennedy.  Edwards barely helped.

As to the 5,000 e-mails:

Eventually, we asked Senator Obama to send out an email for the campaign to his Connecticut list.  We created a culture in which emails became news (much like we did with the blogs in the primary).  They made it entirely clear that he would basically not even mention Joe Lieberman's name in the email, let alone take him to task for his unfortunate position on the war in Iraq.  This was disappointing, but I wasn't going to be spiteful.  They sent the email, and as I hoped, the press came calling.  Our Press Secretary, Eddie Vale, was asked how many people the email went to.  He looked on the back-end of the website and saw the number of click-throughs to the landing page I created.  He answered "about 5,000."  Within minutes of the Associated Press piece going on the wire, I received several phone calls from Obama staff.  They were none to pleased about the 5,000 number.  Essentially, Obama could be seen as helping, but not helping THAT much.  His staff apparently made it clear that the email only went out to 225 people in Connecticut.  That's it.  The next day we were subject to a correction in the papers and ridicule from Lieberman's campaign and corners of the right-wing blogosphere.

I did not realize before tonight that the Obama speech was such a big controversy.  Typing in Obama-Lieberman-mentor got me to a bunch of discussions on liberal/and/or respected blogs like MyDD, firedoglake, My Left Nutmeg.  But a poster at democraticunderground asked the same question I did, and the other blogs ruminated about Obama-Lieberman.

Now, is it possible that Lieberman was asked NOT to endorse any Democrat because it would probably hurt them?  Or would Lieberman's support have helped someone who needed support from the conservative wing of the party?  Who knows.

It is very disillusioning to me that Lamont got so little national Dem support in the general.  For me, the Iraq War is the number one issue.  I'm on several polling lists (including the infamous Zogby interactive) and that's always my number one issue.

I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest.

But the help given Lamont by national Dems seems pathetic, overall, if Tagaris is correct.  

Regarless of which Dems came out looking good and which one's didn't, the failure of Lamont's campaign rests squarely with Lamont.  After the primary, Lamont made the tactical mistake of taking time off to go on vacation.  He lost the momentum he gained from winning the primary and never recovered.  

Just saying to make sure no one misunderstands, I'd proudly vote for and support anyone on the list to the left.  Even "other" looks good versus the crop of GOP losers.  

(The candidate satisfaction gap gives the Dems a 17% advantage right now.)

Dealing with the last first, Obama wouldn't benefit by a Lieberman endorsement even if Lieberman had offered it.

Second, it was clear that Lamont had nothing to offer CT voters but his opposition to the war.  He was a wealthy neophyte who was using the war to get into the Senate.  He had no credibility in the state and wasn't going to win.  The Senate's Democratic leadership would have been crazy to oppose Joe when they knew they would desperately need his vote.  Instead, they had to figure out how to express their opposition to his view on the war while not offending him too much.

As for the Des Moines Register endorsement.  I was the person who actually told Senator Paul Simon that he won that endorsement after getting a call from HQ.  We didn't have cell phones back then and, as luck would have it, I was his point man in Burlington, Iowa and he was appearing that night at a town hall style meeting there.  I met him when he arrived and, as he was getting out of his car, I broke the news to him.  He pounded his fist in the air and said something like 'that could put us over the top.'

As it turned out, Simon came in second.  

This time, I am again supporting another Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.  Once again, I think the winner of the endorsement will come up short, in second, or maybe third.

Hillary is the past.  Barack is the future.  It is as simple as that.  Moreover, Barack is trusted and liked two-to-one over Hillary according to the last De Moines Register poll.

Further, in the last debate, Barack proved he was more presidential than Hillary when she cut into a question directed to him.  If you haven't seen the video, I won't ruin the fun for you.  Just go to... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKHBSFSosY

Barack has enough experience, plenty of smarts and the right amount of wit.  He is a natural star and will be a great President.  I'm looking forward to being part of a truly great historical moment in '08.

You speculated on this and wondered whether the endorsements would help.  It looks like McCain is picking up some steam (although maybe the longer the other clowns are out there the better McCain looks).

New polling from Rasmussen shows John McCain surging in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Mike Huckabee has lost some of his previous advantages.

In Iowa, Huckabee now has a narrow lead of 28% to Romney's 27%, with McCain now in third with 14%. That's a huge change from their last poll a week ago, when Huckabee had 39%, Romney 23% and McCain was in fifth place at 6%.

In New Hampshire, Romney has 31%, McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, and Huckabee 11%. A week ago, it was Romney 33%, McCain 18%, Giuliani 15%, and Huckabee 14%.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/...

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

Looking at the latest national Rasmussens, Rudy continues dropping like a rock (and in this case the nationals reflect what is happening in individual states).  Rudy has only 16% now, tied with Romney.  McCain is at 13%, Thompson at 12%.  Huckabee is atop with 22%, which is where he was 12 days ago.

I had kind of counted Romney out, but in the WSJ poll out tomorrow
http://online.wsj.com/article/...  

Romney is tied with Rudy for the top spot, 20% apiece.  Huckabee is at 17% in this poll, with McCain at 14%.

I loved this quote:

In such a fluid contest, the pollster Mr. Hart cautions, "Within a month its going to be totally different."

[sic]