DM Register backs Clinton, McCain

After considerable lobbying efforts, the sought-after Des Moines Register endorsement was announced last night, and paper backed Hillary Clinton.

The editorial emphasized the same points the senator’s campaign has pressed, touting “her knowledge and her competence.”

The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country.

It sounds like the Register had narrowed it down to Clinton and Obama, and the latter drew quite a bit of praise in the endorsement editorial (Obama “demonstrates the potential to be a fine president”). But experience appears to have tipped the scales: “Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence.”

The NYT highlighted the fairly intense lobbying campaign Team Clinton launched to win over the editorial board, including a full-court press: “Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, a leading surrogate, made an unsolicited call to [Carolyn Washburn, the paper’s editor]. Calls to the board’s office were also made by former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Gen. Wesley Clark, each of whom had been given the task of raising a different element of Mrs. Clinton’s experience.”

It paid off. Clinton has been slipping in Iowa of late — Bill Clinton, in a silly attempt to lower expectations, said it would take a “miracle” for his wife to win the state’s caucuses — and the Register’s endorsement is exactly what the campaign needed to help stem the tide.

It’s probably worth noting, though, that the paper’s endorsement has not always translated to caucus victory — the Register also backed Edwards in ’04, Bradley in ’00, and Simon in ’88. As influential as the paper is, none won the caucuses (or the nomination).

As for the Republicans, the paper endorsed John McCain.

McCain has his flaws, too, of course. He can be hot-tempered, a trait that’s not helpful in conducting diplomacy. At 71, his age is a concern. The editorial board disagrees with him on a host of issues, especially his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. McCain foresees a “long, hard and difficult” deployment of troops in Iraq. The Register’s board has called for withdrawal as soon as it’s safely possible.

But with McCain, Americans would know what they’re getting. He doesn’t parse words. And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness — of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations.

It’s not exactly glowing praise, but one assumes McCain will take it.

Also, if you read between the lines a bit, one gets the sense the Register is not at all impressed with Mike Huckabee. Eve Fairbanks noted that the endorsement editorial extends kind words to Giuliani (he “inspired the city and nation with his confident leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks”) and Romney (he “exudes executive discipline”), but would only say that the former Arkansas governor offers “homespun humor.”

“They make him sound like he should be auditioning not to be president but to replace Mr. Rogers,” Fairbanks said.

[comment deleted]

  • On the one hand, the Register endorsements are based on long face-to-face interviews with each candidate and the editorial board – they have a very solid opportunity to draw well-supported conclusions about the candidates. On the other hand, given the recent track record of journalists in general one can wonder what qualifies them to draw meaningful conclusions, what expertise they possess that makes their opinion any better than yours or mine (if we had the same access to the candidates).

    Iowans have so much information on the candidates that the Register endorsement is just one more grain of sand on a beach – it is there, it factors in to the mix, but it rarely drives any significant numbers. If can cause people to give candidates a second look (surely what McCain is banking on). That said, I thought they made their case fairly well. Indeed, the Boston Globe made its case for Obama well, and those two competing endorsements encapsulate well the distillation of the race for those top two. (Edwards surely was the big loser in getting neither endorsement, particularly when he had the Register four years ago — and McCain has to be the big winner nabbing both endorsements and presumably getting a second look from a lit of Repubs because of it.)

    One thing that really comes through in the Register endorsements, however, is CB’s theme from earlier in the week about how much better the Dems are in general as a field of candidates. The Register seemed fairly impressed with most of the Dems, but came up with largely backhanded compliments for the Repubs.

  • I’ve got news for you. Everyone who runs for president in Iowa as a Democrat woos the Des Moines Register editorial board. To fail to do so would be pretty dumb. It’s the biggest newspaper in the state and one that actually takes a fairly liberal editorial position.

    There’s evidence to suggest the Register’s endorsement may have given John Edwards a 10-point bump in 2004 (you never want to infer causality merely from a correlation but something sure did.) Here are the results of two Research 2000 polls taken in Iowa on 1.5-7 and 1/12-14 in 2004. Both are completely in line with other polls taken before and after the Des Moines Register announced their endorsement on Jan. 11th.

    Research 2000, Jan 12-14, 2004
    N = 607 LVs, MoE +/- 4%
    Clark 2
    Dean 22
    Edwards 18
    Gephardt 18
    Kerry 21
    Lieberman 1

    Research 2000, Jan 5-7, 2004
    N = 404 LVs, MoE +/- 5%
    Clark 3
    Dean 29
    Edwards 8
    Gephardt 25
    Kerry 18
    Lieberman 2

  • The editorial emphasized the same points the senator’s campaign has pressed, touting “her knowledge and her competence…”

    Meh.
    The bottom line: 40-50% of Americans hate this woman passionately.

    The fact that she is running for president despite being loathed by so many…
    Speaks not of knowledge and competence but rather ARROGANCE and CRASS ambition.

    If she had any love of country she’d realize her presidency will bring nothing but divisiveness and rancor to our nation.

    But she is a politician and a senator.
    Which means basically, she’s lost all sense of introspection and balanced judgement.
    Fame and power is the ultimate kool-aid.
    Fame and power makes you arrogant and crass.
    She is drunk on her own celebrityhood.

    Fat-headed and bloated by her own delusions of self-importance…
    Hillary can’t see what is plain as day to an objective observer :

    Her presidency will bring only more hate to the soul of America.
    She is cancer.

    Democrats should reject her candidacy en masse.
    If you care at all about America: Vote for Obama.
    He is are only last best chance.

  • ROTFDrinkingTheKoolAid –

    I like Obama, I think he is a great communicator and a really bright guy, who seems like a pretty decent human being as well. But he is not a savior. He is not a once-in-a-lifetime wunderkind. He has no notable reputation as a US Senator, his campaign has been heavy on moving rhetoric and short on specifics, and he has a buch of insiders handling his campaign who are every bit as Establishment as the Clintons and the Bushes (Daschle, who was largely ineffective – unless compared to Reid – as our Senate Leader, and Axelrod who, as someone posted the other day, would be no more able to sell one a used car than Mark Penn).

    There may be reasons for various Democrats to prefer Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Dodd, Biden or Kucinich (there really is no reason to prefer Gravel). But none of them are really that different – they are all hyper ambitious and “self important”, they are all politicians, they are all more liberal than any leading Republican, they are all more competent than any leading Republican, they will all appoint better judges than any leading Republican, and they will all get smeared equally and will result in the same Republican instinct toward dividing the country.

    As I say, I like Obama, but I tire of the breathless, “OMG! I was in the front row for Justin TImberlake and he touched me! I’ll never wash my hand!” type of commentary on the guy. He’s just not quite all that.

    (And anecdotally I would add that the WifeGeist – or is it ZeitWife? – was leaning Obama until his ad about “just one city, one state, the country – lets go save the world!” came out, which she thought was the most vacuous, over-the-top thing she’d seen in politics in a long while. She’d rather some details on how to save this country first.)

  • The bottom line: 40-50% of Americans hate this woman passionately.

    That would be total unfavorable. “Passionately hate” is going to be a somewhat smaller subset of that total. Anyway, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that Republicans will find ways to at least intensely dislike (if not passionately hate) anyone the Democrats nominate. But in all fairness, I have to admit I’m not all that crazy about any of their guys either.

  • Actually, the “she’s passionately hated” meme doesn’t hold up. Please read Ezra Klein’s opinion piece in the LA Times today where he talks about those supposedly awful negatives in the context of other presidential campaigns .

    The Polarizing Express

    Also, you need to look at the Gallup survey where they document that her negatives are A) going down and B) not out of line with other postive/negative ratings of other candidates and campaigns. It is Obama’s high favorables that are anomalous, not HRC’s low favorables. I’m sorry I can’t find the link to that article right away.

    What I appreciated most about the DMR endorsement was that they focused on what happens *after* the election – namely, moving the nation beyond the mess that BushCo has created and implementing the Democratic agenda.

    I’m getting tired of Obama’s chief qualification being he might be able to win the Dem nomination due to exploiting HRC backlash. My objections to Obama are about the wishy-washy nature of his policies (vs. HRC, Edwards, Biden, heck, even Kucinich) coupled with his promises to put unity and healing first. He has said nothing about his own plans that are substantively different and more compelling than what I hear from the other Dems.

    Obama supporters know how to smear HRC, but they are less adept at explaining in concrete terms what their candidate has to offer me. After HRC, I chose Dodd, Edwards, Biden and Richardson. I will not give Obama a primary vote.

  • Thanks for the Klein link, Fergus. He has a great passage in their that, echoing one of Carpetbagger’s repeated themes, should be required reading for the Broderites of the Beltway:

    This article should, I’m pretty sure, end with a ringing denunciation of polarization, of partisanship, of politics in general. But to reach for such simple conclusions is to dangerously oversimplify our national landscape. Insofar as real disagreements exist within the population, polarization is inevitable, even healthy.

  • Ezra Klein’s piece is a mishmash of misrepresentation.

    He ignores the numbers that are slapping him in the face and talks about “favorable” and “unfavorable” poll numbers for Bush in 2004 and Clinton in 1996.

    Please.
    I am not talking about “favorable versus unfavorable.”

    That doesn’t capture what a huge percent of people in the country feel about Hillary.
    I am talking about a Likert scale where 1 is “can’t stand” and 5 is “wish I could waterboard her with my vomit.”

    Worse, Klein’s whole piece floats on the fact that they both Bush and Clinton won their elections.

    But won what?

    More hartred.
    And more divisiveness.
    That’s what.

    I am NOT saying Hillary can’t win…
    I am saying she is not good for the future of the planet.

    Her ability to mitigate the rancor that will be aimed at her like a shotgun and do something positive with her time in office is the crux of the matter.
    She might have the most wonderful ideas in the history of democratic government.
    It won’t matter a whit.
    45% of the population is going to oppose those ideas simply because they are hers.
    It will be gridlock on an epic scale.
    It will be hatred on an epic scale.

    Harry Truman said the key to being a good president was getting people to do what they might not want to do. Good luck with that Hillary!

    I argue that in fact Obama is far more likely to pull off Truman’s high wire act.

    He is not afraid to go into Detroit and tell GM that what they are doing isn’t good enough.
    He isn’t afraid to go into Iowa and tell some of the most obese people on earth that being fat isn’t good enough…

    Hillary?
    Please… pass the mishmash.

  • I love this blog, and respect your usual accuracy. Unfortunately, you are guilty of what you sometimes accuse the press of, running with a story when you do not have the full accurate story.
    On the Rose Show, after a lengthy discussion about his wife’s campaign, and his, in his bid for the White House, President Clinton said the following:
    “And I think that — but I think it’s a miracle that Hillary’s got a chance to win. She might win this thing in Iowa.”

    I do not think I am parsing words when I say that the intent of this phrase is entirely different than you portrayed.

  • Note to Hillary: The World does not need or want your tough-girl act. Yes it worked for Lady Thatcher, but when you try it people tend to look away. If you’re really feeling angry why not get some exercise? You’ll feel (& think) alot better! In that respect, I wouldn’t mind a 3rd Bush term, or a President Mitt.

    Like pro-sports, politics today is part entertainment; Maybe that’s why the nation in it’s wisdom passed on Gore-the-Bore. And a Schrill-Hill isn’t a winner either. So with all due respect, please wise-up. We could be off-a-cliff economically [multi-trillions of unfunded liabilities] and ecologically [melting ice-caps]. If/when a crash and/or collapse comes, you and ‘Nurse Nancy’ might offer us some effective FDR style triage.

  • I’m paranoid that it’s not just the DM Register that has ‘picked’ these 2 as our nominees. Dems will win but McCain will make the loss least embarrassing for the GOP. But still…it feels Orwellian, as if some powerful 3rd party has decided this for us. It’s just too ‘neat’ of a package. Too pragmatic and centrist because either one of them could go either way on any issue.

    The insanity should continue with another female who has had eight years experience in the WH….Laura Bush is throwing her hat into the ring…I don’t think it equates because Hillary is not an air head. Also, what has McCain EVER done except shout his name from the roof tops?

    The register’s supporting arguments are weightless in reality. The nation does not need to compromise to get things working right again…It needs to completely change directions and throw these republicans and centrist dems who have all but destroyed our democracy out of power in order to ‘repair’ and end this destructive reign of power for the last 12yrs. who governed in the name of greed and self-centered profiteering. America needs to be rebuilt because of neglect and indifference to it’s needs not compromised away while repubs figure a way to profiteer from its rebuilding.

    There are over 50 “…gates” going on with our current administration right now from their secret self serving way of governing. It needs to end by electing an overwhelming majority of dems armed with roach spray. For the past 12yrs bipartisanship was nothing more than date-rape to these republicans and there is no room for their trying to make sure government won’t work. Both sides (repubs and dems) of this “money” party have to go if we are to save our democracy from the robber barons. Who the hell is the DM Registar to blindly point the way forward. Their in Iowa for goodness sake.

  • I will never accept that 45-50% of the country hate Hillary with a passion. Then you turn around and say it’s not that you think she can’t win…how is that possible with 50% hating her passionately? You have a very distorted viewpoint which works by innuendo and assumption to the point of being extremely bitter when it comes to Hillary. If she were all those things then the Republicans would want her to be president…and they don’t.
    We are not electing Kings and Queens here and they will follow party dictates. We need overwhelming majorities in the congress of progressives or no matter who is president we will still get Feinstein-Rockefellar-Pelosi policies which are largely self-serving and for sale to the largest donor. We might get a stronger progressive influence with a different candidate than Clinton but they will still have to deal with the party. You act like Clinton is going to take over and do what ever the hell she wants and that simply is not the case.
    I would hope you would state your objections to the candidates policies without emotionally bashing them and screaming disaster. As long as the dems are in power and a majority then we will not stray too far from our party’s platform no matter which dem is president.

    Right now our screams should be directed toward Harry Reid who currently far outranks Clinton on deciding bad policy…Telecom immunity and war funding without conditions? Great one Reid…saying our presidential candidates who support Dodd’s filibuster and no amnesty don’t know what is good for them as if they lack good judgment because you know better…way to support our candidates Reid…just ignore them and their judgme

  • I think I will just quote myself:

    “He is not afraid to go into Detroit and tell GM that what they are doing isn’t good enough.
    He isn’t afraid to go into Iowa and tell some of the most obese people on earth that being fat isn’t good enough…”

    bjobotts….the ball is in your court.
    Tell me one issue comparable to either of those that the Triagulation Princess has stood up for?

    Side note: Can we agree that being “troubled” by retroactive immunity for the telcos is not one of them?

    One last thing: the reason that Hillary can win despite the profound and prevalent hate for her is akin to Bush’s victory in 04. It is all about the electoral system and the fact that many a Dem will hold their nose and pull the Hillary lever.

    I won’t vote for her.
    If not a Green… I may vote Repug for the first time in my life. At least I know that McCain has got enough “experience” to end this torture shit forever. For me THAT is the most important issue.

    Because… a country that tortures isn’t worth pledging allegiance to. It isn’t worth living in. It isn’t worth spitting on. It isn’t worth caring about. A country that tortues isn’t worth a terrorist’s fart.

    I believe the military will actually listen to McCain on this issue. With Hillary… they will be fighting her every command tooth and nail just because she is a woman. At least McCain will make the military dogs sit up and obey. He will crack a whip on these torture punks big time…
    I’d love to see it.

  • He isn’t afraid to go into Iowa and tell some of the most obese people on earth that being fat isn’t good enough…”

    By that measure, ROTF, I would assume Huckabee is your guy.

    With Hillary… they will be fighting her every command tooth and nail just because she is a woman.

    Frankly I can think of no better argument for why we need a woman President sooner rather than later — to, as you put it, “crak a whip on these sexist punks big time.”

  • ROTF has this exactly right. Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation might win; if so, we’ll all lose. There’s nothing funnier to me, in a bitter way, than reading about how she’s going to “move the country forward” after winning.

    No, she’s not. She’ll do what Bill did–focus on winning re-election beginning on Jan. 21. And she’ll do that by continued ardent courtship of the big money interests who already see her as the moderate Republican that she is.

    Obama surely is no savior. He might fall on his face. But he does have the potential to do something no Democratic president has done probably since JFK: get Republicans to listen to him, and maybe even change their minds. With HRH HRC, if she asserts that the sky is blue and that we all breathe oxygen, just under half the country will counter that it’s purple and we actually subsist on helium. Won’t four more years of that be fun? The right continuing to hate her, and the rest of the left–her current apologists–eventually figuring out that she’s Bill without the charisma.

    I wouldn’t vote for McCain or any Republican, but with Il Douche starting to look like a done duck, I might sooner write in Al Gore than vote for The Restoration.

  • As someone who lives in Des Moines — The Register is a small town newspaper with very conservative leanings. All they did this time around was to pick the most conservative candidates from both parties.

  • All they did this time around was to pick the most conservative candidates from both parties.

    I should probably clarify that this is “middle” of the road conservatives. Hillary resembles a Republican more and more (see her voting record).

    McCain while not the poster boy for President doesn’t come off as too far right like Mitt, Rudy, and The Huckster.

  • Comments are closed.