Obama, by running the sort of campaign he's been running, does not need endorsements, though they are of course helpful.  The story is, I suppose, that Hillary avoided disaster; it's not that Obama is in trouble.

It's indeed possible that the endorsement could ratchet up expectations for Hillary in Iowa, so that if she does not get a win there, she looks weaker.  That raising of expectations will undermine Bill CLinton's (transparently mendacious) spinning on Charlie Rose that a Hillary win in Iowa would be "a miracle."   Now if she loses Iowa despite this endorsement, a loss there for her will mean:  The voters just don't like her no matter how many establishmentarians call her the safer choice.

Also, Obama's general strength, plus the well-written Globe endorsement, might flip the story in a way Michael hasn't anticipated:  Obama still competitive in Iowa, with NH as--suddenly-- Obama's firewall.  He can lose Iowa (if it's a narrow loss), win NH and South Carolina and be very much alive going into the big Tuesday.

It's instructive to compare this DMR endorsement with their endorsement of McCain. The McCain piece is crisp, brief, tightly argued and leaves no doubt that if you care about the priorities set out at the start of the piece, McCain's the only logical choice.

As for the HRC editorial, it rambles across all kinds of extraneous stuff and fails to even address, with any real honesty or credibility, the principal test it proposes at the beginning, ie :preparedness" to lead. The DRM editros write, "The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces -- from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change?"

Regarding "preparedness" to end the Iraq war, Biden stands head and shoulders above his rivals; his plan is the only really credible and intelligent one we've seen. Re. confronting global warming, it's not clear that any of the candidates has an edge, least of all Hillary. Biden's legislative skills and political savvy are superior to hers, so he has to get the nod here. As to "shoring up the middle class," Biden's net worth is about 1/100 of Edwards', the other working-class hero, and Joe makes the daily commute to Delaware to be with his family. Biden without question has more insight into how working families actually live, struggle and get by these days than any of the candidates running on either side.

This editorial is an incoherent, mail-it-in joke. Pity.

The two funniest pieces from the endorsements:

Frist re: McCain-

“McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He’s also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America’s image abroad. …"

Second re: Edwards-

"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change..."

Sorry Edwards we don't think you would work well with the business community. Hillarious! I mean not as hillarious as thinking McCain wouldn't go to war, but still hillarious!

mb

As a confirmed Obamite, my first reaction was "Hillary?....wha...?"  She wasn't even among the potential names mentioned.  Definately a surprise.  Must help her, couldn't hurt her.

But on reflection, I suspect that it hurts Edwards more than it helps Hillary.  He came out of that last debate  (in the middle of a work day, who really watched it anyway, but....) with some "mo", if the focus groups are to be believed, and he has been picking up some buzz in Des Moines, according to reports over the weekend, and the Register endorsement could have given that momentum some resonance.  Seems like failing to get it might cancel his good debate.  

On the other hand, Hillary had an awful debate, particularly that moment when she was caught cackling and looking ugly and got slapped down by Obama, so the endorsement might mitigate the bad couple weeks she has had.  Keeps her in the game, avoids "meltdown" and keeps her out of third place.

But for the folks who don't want Hillary (which may be the critical mass) and are trying to decide between Barack and Edwards about who has the best chance of beating her down the road, (And I maintain that, good a man as Edwards is, that's the contest that Hillary wants, because that's the contest she thinks she can win....) this may diminish Edwards a bit and helps Obama.

And if Iowa comes down to a combination of organization and momentum, then the sum total of HIllary's and Ewards respective momentums just got a little skewed, Obama still has two weeks to hit the hustings and maintain the buzz, and he seems to have the best organization in the state.  Every single major Iowa event in the last couple months (The Harkin dinner, the Jefferson-Jackson dinner) were packed to the rafters with Obama supporters.  So they can get their people out.  And Iowa is all about getting your people out.

Tep, you may have something of a point about some of the language, but this:

"The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton."

...seems like a pretty straightforward endorsement to me.

You know that I agree with you about Biden. It's a great, great pity, and it speaks poorly of  us as a nation that such a talented, experienced, smart individual, somebody so clearly qualified for the office, can't get more traction than he does.

And I agree with vanwurs that, in a perverse way, it  probably helps Obama at the expense of  Edwards. But it's a net plus for Hillary, without a doubt.

"Still, no doubt Obama would gladly trade with Clinton."

I disagree with this. While the DMR endorsement is a good thing for HRC and might get her to a solid 2nd in Iowa, it's hard to imagine it translating into an outright win for Hillary. The Globe endorsement, meanwhile, will have an effect on a much tighter race, NH, which is also much more crucial to HRC.

Bottom line: the DMR endorsement has probably averted an Iowa disaster (3rd place) for HRC, but I think SHE'S the one who would have gladly switched.

Serious question: The DMR endorsement is said to be "influential." But can anyone quantify the effects of the DMR endorsement on past Democratic caucuses? By what percentage did Iowa polls shift after the last three or four DMR endorsements, and in what direction, and how were those shifts in polling data reflected in the caucus results?

These are answerable questions. If there are any actual journalists covering the campaign, this is the sort of answer they might set out to find in order to determine whether all the claims about the DMR's influence and how much it helps Hillary/hurts everyone else are, you know, true.

If Hillary does well in Iowa, and "well" can be just a good second place, I'm betting the next news cycle (starting around January 4) will be about Hillary as the second comeback kid (Bill being the first in 1992), and this endorsement will be written up as the turning point at which she began to stop Obama's momentum.  Full disclosure - I am a Hillary supporter, but I also am just judging things based on the horserace nature of political reporting and the rather egotistical nature of journalists to name their own actions as being central to cultural and political life.  

The DMR endorsement is undoubtedly a much-needed righintg of the ship for Hillary, but probably it hurts Edwards more than Obama. Edwards had something going, and this stops it in its tracks.

Hillary is running as an institutional figure. Let's see how more institutional support plays out.

Let's see, for example, how Iowa voters react to her campaign's surrogate airdrop. The HRC campaign has recently been heavy-handed and clumsy, and this looks like more of the same. It's an odd echo of the orange-hatted Deaniacs swarming the state, a sort of Democratic has-beens (and wannabes again) browbeating session.

And clearly some Iowa voters turned away from her. This surely doesn't turn them back -- not at this stage. No doubt it's close, and maybe this does close the deal for her. Or maybe it doesn't.

No surprise that another mainstream media provider is coming to Hillary's rescue, par for the course.

Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- Obama Responds

www.editorandpublisher.com/.../article_display.jsp

Just another continuation of the politics of fear, don't vote for us because our ideas are better, vote for us because you're afraid of what could happen with Obama. It's a pathetic argument, born out of desperation, that unfortunately the Clinton campaign decided to lead with from the very beginning.  And now they're in the end game with the fear mongering.  Are they out of cards to play already?  Perhaps they didn't have much of a hand to begin with.

The truth is that Hillary Clinton is a complete unknown, as president.  But of course we do know exactly what she did in the Senate, capitulate to the Republicans at almost every opportunity apparently thinking it would give her a lock on the nomination, and four years ago perhaps it would have.  She should've run her campaign in 2004, but apparently she wasn't interested in a real challenge, she preferred to wait for the <b>easy win.</b>  

Excuse me for taking satisfaction in watching her bleed a little, because she left us with that stiff John Kerry, perhaps counting on him to lose.  I see what's happening to her campaign now as rather well-deserved.  And now that she's under real pressure, she doesn't look quite so good, now does she?  I'd be willing to bet that Clinton's advisers told her that if she ran in 2004, her government experience would've been brought into question by the Republicans, in much the same way she's done with Obama.  Sorry Hillary, it's too late to use the <b>tactics out of the Karl Rove handbook.</b>

 And Hillary has the nerve to tell us that her perpetual acquiescence in the Senate was a sign of strength and stability, please!  I see her tactical approach as very similar to those used by her husband and it seems likely that she would govern the same way.  

In my opinion the William Jefferson Clinton presidency was hardly more than a slowdown of the conservative movement.  Bill did little more than stave off the nightmare we have now.  We lost the Congress because the Democrats were weak, their ideas were badly lacking, poorly articulated and even more poorly executed.  And the only reason the Democrats regained the majority in the House and Senate in 2006 is because we have an incompetent moron in the White House, who usurped the People's sovereignty, crapped on the Constitution, and started a war with a country who was no threat to us, damaging this country and our economy immeasurably.  <b>With the money we've blown, and are going to blow, we could already had national health care for everyone.</b>

(This thought continues after a short two paragraph trip into bizarro world, and the undeniable fact that the incompetence of George W. Bush has become the savior of the Democratic Party)

Just imagine what this political race would look like if George Bush had listened to the right people from the start, and been able to create some kind of corporate capitalist paradise in Iraq, and the price of gas was back to $.89 a gallon with the help of cheaply acquired Iraqi oil, and the economy was humming along and growing nicely.  The Republicans would still have the majority in Congress, and the Democrats would have little or no chance of winning this election.  Hillary wouldn't be running, and neither would Obama, they'd both be waiting for a better opportunity to go for the gold.  Al Gore would be running for president, along with John Kerry again.  Gore would get the nomination, and then lose badly in the general election, even with his Nobel prize.  Thankfully we don't live in that bizarro world, but if Bush had been a competent administrator like his brother Jeb, the Democrats could very easily have found themselves in that situation.

The truth is George W. Bush has done more to help the Democratic party than any president since Nixon.  It seems the Democrats need Republican screw ups to make them look good. It's just too bad that our country and its people have to pay the price for their gains.  Now I understand why those who once claimed to be progressives, crossover and become conservatives Republicans, apparently it's about being able to wake up and respect yourself in the morning.

(Continuing my original thought)

After the Bush debacle of course the people switched over to a party that they hoped would remember who they work for, unfortunately we now know that pretty much both parties in Congress have sold us all down the river like slaves on this corporate plantation. In a sense, the people/slaves are like a giant sleeping Leviathan, and our representatives just do the absolute minimum that is required to keep us sleeping and placated.  The only time they even think about really paying attention to us is when we are roused from our slumber. Then our representatives begin acting out of the fear of losing their jobs, so it's no wonder that they continually resort to similar tactics when dealing with us.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Hillary Clinton doing much more than continuing this appeasement of the minority Republican Party, and the <b>all-powerful forces of mutated mercantile capitalism, where the government works for the corporations, and the people are just an afterthought.</b>  With the Clintons in the White House, before you know it, they'll be telling the American people that the the sow's ear were being sold is in fact a silk purse, and we should be damned grateful for it.  

And of course we'll get a guaranteed continuation of the partisan games we've all come to know and love.  The Republicans will do everything in their power to undermine the Clinton presidency in the hopes of regaining the House and Senate, which they will probably do, without the war issue and a rapidly failing economy weighing them down like a loadstone the way it is today.  Instead it'll be hanging around Hillary's neck, and it will drag her down along with the Democrats in Congress.  Bill will be doing damage control, as he is now, and the Clintons will be lucky to get one term in the White House because the American people will not tolerate Iraq going on endlessly, and inflation spiraling out of control while people lose their houses and can't find anything but crappy service jobs, servicing a shrinking middle-class who will watch as the buying power of their dollars shrinks as well.  They'll be marching on the White House with pitchforks and torches, calling for the head of the monster.

I don't need some half assed journey back to the 90s, minus the economic growth and relative peace, and neither do the American people.  But the Republicans would love it because it will once again give them the opportunity to show how weak the Democrats are, and before you know it we'll see yet another resurgence of Reaganomics, privatization, deregulation, and the American people left to swing in the breeze while our elected representatives keep this sick little game going until the United States really is a third-rate power, the mere remnants of the once proud empire, just another failed Republic waiting for its imminent collapse. In the end we'll find ourselves begging help from China, India and perhaps even -- tucking our tail between our legs -- Venezuela.  :-)

And maybe in a hundred years or so, <b>Americans will find themselves getting on boats to flee this failed state, to become skulking illegal aliens in Africa.</b>  Just imagine, white folks working in the kitchens and produce fields of an emerging prosperous United Africa, desperately afraid that they'll be discovered and deported back to the abject poverty and squalor of the US. Even better, I'd really love to see Americans killing themselves to reach the shores of Haiti, in the hopes of providing a better future for their children (okay well not really, but you take my meaning).  Now that would be a real measure of karmic justice.

I'll tell you what, Obama's inexperience doesn't frighten me, but the thought of such scenarios terrifies me, and it should terrify all of you as well. <b>So be afraid, be very afraid, of Hillary and all such pretenders who would pressure you into supporting them out of fear. </b>

I'd like to know what people think about how much any newspaper's endorsement effects a candidate's chances in this age of 24/7 worldwide saturation news coverage, political blogging, and nosediving newspaper readership,  

I mean, it was easy to blow off Oprah's endorsement of BHO--and rightly so--but does the Des Moines Register editorial board carry very much more clout than Ms. Winfrey?  Or reach as many people?  And what can anyone make of a paper that endorses candidates for both parties?  Unless they take the position that the two candidates endorsed would produce the best, most substantive general election contest, it seems to me that any such double endorsement is doomed to incoherence.

Hillary's in trouble, and I don't see that the DMR nod changes the state of play much at all.  At best, it might be the nudge that keeps her out of the third-place toilet, but with or without the endorsement, that result seems increasingly unlikely.  And the thing is won't do is get her in over Obama.  

I reckon the Clinton camp is feeling nervous in a way that the endorsement will do little ameliorate, mainly because the game has already shifted away from Iowa to New Hampshire where the DMR doesn't mean jack and where in the past two weeks Clinton's firewall has itself gone up in flames.  (In the 14 days or so that I've been watching, HRC's lead over BHO in New Hampshire has gone from 13 to 3 in the RCP average.)

My predictions: Obama wins Iowa; Clinton comes in a close second.  On Jan 4, with known Obamaniac and Clinton-hater Joe Trippi whispering in his ear, Edwards bows out and slaps his endorsement on Obama.  These developments give the lie to the inevitability narrative Clinton has been milking from day one and provide a good enough reason for those Democratic voters looking for a reason NOT to vote for HRC to defect to Obama and push him over the top in NH as well.  And that, I predict will be all she wrote.  For all the hubbub about Feb 5 and the early big state primaries, I say the contest will be decided like it has been for the past 40 years, in IA and NH.

AaronBrown, I'm no exemplar of brevity (see previous post), but have you ever written a post that was LESS than 15 full paragraphs long?

I think you alluded to the key question, aeromonas, which is whom Edwards endorses if/when he drops out.

primwallflow -

From what did you get that the race in New Hampshire is "a much tighter race" than that in Iowa? That's definitely not what the polls are saying...

Check the running averages on www.realclearpolitics.com/.../democratic_primaries.html for example; they have Obama leading by 3.5% in Iowa, and Clinton leading by 3.0% in New Hampshire.

Or check the more cautious trendlines on pollster.com; they have Obama leading by just 1.5% in Iowa, and Hillary leading by 6.2% in New Hampshire.

Ooooh, I didn't know they said that about Edwards. That they weren't endorsing him because he doesn't work well with corporations. I''ve only been reading the excerpts on the blogs.

That kind of plays into Hillary's rep, and throws into question the editorial's sincerity w/the "experienced" garbage. I'm really waiting for someone to line up what Obama did in his years in office - including Illionois - with what Hillary did in hers. This would not hurt E or O so much, to a voter who wasn't crazy about corporate ownership of candidates. And those are the voters who go for those guys anyway.

"doesn't work well with corporations"? - are they kidding? Yeah, he's a trial lawyer, but this isn't 1935, or even 1975. There's almost no constituency in this country for any really significant rollback of the power of major corporations, whether they be GM and GE or Google and Yahoo.

Edwards as POTUS would definitely impose a few symbolic slaps on HaLLibUrtOn and bLaCkWaTER, and maybe some (more or less trivial) restrictions on Big Pharma and a slight increase in taxes on Big Oil, but that's about it.

If you really want to help working families in this country, then you have to focus like the proverbial laser beam on a few issues of sweeping importance to tens of millions of working-class and lower middle-class families-- single-payor, pension and tax reform, fixing the broken economic relationship with Mexico, universal state funding for 2 years of pre-K school for everyone (perhaps to be paid for by shifting school years from K-18 to 3-16), etc. Attacking Big Bad Corporations, many of which are more progressive than any small employer, ain't going to do jack for working families.

Tep -- agreed.  The Register didn't endorse Hillary over Obama.  It endorsed Hillary's narrative over Obama's narrative, swallowing the former pretty uncritically.  In what sense, exactly, has Hillary demonstrated her "readiness"?  We're told that, when she met with the editorial board, she impressed them with her knowledge and competence.  One might ask how she demonstrated her competence in a meeting.  As for knowledge, I find it hard to believe that Obama, who consistently demonstrates thorough knoweldge of domestic and foreign policy issues, came off as relatively ignorant.  But she brings people together!  Hmm.  Mixing narratives, are we?  And if experience was what "set Hillary apart," they at least owed their readers a discussion of the unquestionably far more seasoned Biden.  Incoherent is right.  Seldom have I read an editorial endorsement that's more the mere equivalent of, "We just like the cut of her jib."  Maybe, but it's not an argument.