Iowa Newspaper Endorsement Reboots Clinton Campaign - Obama-mania suffers major blow

The Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton could well be remembered as the moment when the New York senator began to lock down the Democratic presidential nomination. Expectations were running high that her main party rival, Barack Obama, would bag Iowa’s largest newspaper as the closing chapter for an emerging narrative that Clinton had lost her luster.

Instead, Obama-mania suffered a major blow. The Register’s pragmatic editorial backing Clinton minced no words about what the newspaper sees as the Illinois senator’s “relative inexperience.” Even if Obama wins the Iowa caucuses, this endorsement likely guarantees that Clnton will do well enough to maintain her lead in bigger states down the road.

But the Iowa newspaper's hard-hitting rationale for its endorsement might just persuade undecided voters to give Sen. Clinton the margin for victory in the state's Jan. 3 caucuses. The Register not only backed her candidacy. It's supporting editorial concisely ratified her campaign’s closing argument – that she is prepared for the presidency, and Obama is not.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/

That endorsement really worked out well for them...

:crazy:

:)

Don't judge an Obama supporter by it's cover.

No small thing in this neck of the woods.

times. Not so with the DMR endorsement.

:)

"It was a bad night for Obama."

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Obama-mania suffers major blow" well at least, it something they are used to.

The editorial did frame Clinton's message effectively, and it altered local news coverage while doing so - giveng Clinton some positive press at a time when Obama and Edwards were starting to get most of it. No doubt virtually all of the Democratic Iowa caucus voters will have read it before they "vote". Clinton's Iowas prospects certainly would have been more bleak had Obama gotten that endorsement instead. It gave Clinton a quality pause to catch a "second wind". Whether or not she does is a different story now in the early telling.

Oprah will come running with her golden leash.

:rofl:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

Slip, sliding away.....

"It's supporting editorial concisely ratified her campaign’s closing argument "

As if the Clinton Camp wasn't involved in drafting this. They put their latest talking point in the endorsement.

To bad she has decided to shelf that thesis in favor of Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes!

Like John F. Kennedy in 1960.

was a prominent mover and shaker. I doubt if Obama moved in similar circles of influence.

A Google of "John F. Kennedy" and "inexperience" leads to a bounty of hits.
Yet during the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy showed more intelligence and mettle than all the "experienced" brass in the Pentagon combined.
I'll take that kind of "inexperience" any day.

This is a different time - citizens are now more frightened than ever about the future. Experience, or the lack there of, was not really the issue - Kennedy was just simply more attractive than Nixon. Fortunately he turned out to be a calm and thoughtful President when he was challenged.

At this point in our history I think that voters (and it is the older citizens that show up and vote in greater numbers) want to be certain that an adult is in charge. They are not likely to take a chance with Obama. Maybe next time.

The early 1960s was a very frightening time. The Cold War was raging, children were hiding under desks at school waiting for the nuke to drop, fallout shelter signs were everywhere. Remember those three triangles at the entrance to every basement?
The fear of nuclear war at that time was as great or greater than the current fear of another Al Qaeda attack today.
Experience sure was an issue for the Nixon campaign of 1960.
As far as "adult in charge", Kennedy was 43 at his inauguration, Obama would be 47 at his.

Although the danger at the time may have been more real than now, there was also great effort to calm the nation. I don't remember ever really worrying about the bomb past 1956-57. In other words, we felt generally safe and thought our government had everything under control.

:silly:

But Quayle was an empty suit, unlike Obama and these "inexperienced" guys:

1. Theodore Roosevelt - age 42
2. John F. Kennedy - age 43*
3. Bill Clinton - age 46
4. Ulysses S. Grant - 46

So we have T. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton and Grant, all inaugurated in their 40s. All younger than Obama would be at his inauguration.

Historically, it seems age and "experience" count less than character and ability.

* Kennedy was the youngest elected, TR was the youngest inaugurated after McKinley's assassination.

Thanks for the contribution.
This place is, at times, indeed a load of laughs.

:rofl:

FYI- the big white box below "subject" is where you provide your counterpoint.
Subject lines alone are a waste of my time.

... but in the end, Hillary is still a candidate with high negatives (somewhat unfairly) who represents nothing new. She's doesn't really have a vision; she just has a pretty good machine backing her up. I think Obama will win Iowa and Edwards will take second place. I think Hillary's biggest problem is that she represents the Democratic status quo, and hardly anyone is happy with what the Democrats in Congress are doing.

... have ever been anything to pay attention to.

He's a known Clintonista. He's been hating on Barack ever since February. And is he seriously saying the DMR endorsement will help Hillary in other states? LOL Wow, he's really reaching for it! I'm sure all those folks in South Carolina were anxiously waiting to hear from the DMR so they can make their decision.

saying the Repubs. WILL bring it up, so it's valid for the Clinton camp to air their "concerns" about it. :eyes:

They're independent thinkers. Surely they're read the endorsement and weigh their options, but this is only a good talking point for the Clinton campaign.

How it reboots her campaign is beyond me. You didn't make that case at all.

Obama and Edwards have the edge in Iowa. How Hillary could gain back so much ground in ONE newspaper endorsement is quite a silly thing to assume.

When I found that you were the poster, wyldwolf. I guess a day without a swipe at Obama is like a day without sunshine, huh?

All quite meaningless.