disagree a bit obviosly I would rather have had the endorsement but Obama's doing great in NH now with the indies in the game, now he can kind of back off a bit in the Iowa expectations game. Tonight when asked about they said it's not surprising wer'e not an editorial board candidate and wer'e not the establishment candidate. Last night Bill Clinton said Iowa would be a miracle to win, now no one will listen to that nonsense.

... narrative is not likely to be what she needs to win Iowa. "Is the person most likely to bring about the changes you want to see" is the narrative she needs to establish, and since she comes across as the one who will aim for the least dramatic change, she needs to work very hard to argue that she will at least win 100% of what she goes for.

It would in NH!

I think alot depends upon who receives the endorsement. An endorsement of Hillary seems less likely to matter, because she is the default nominee in a sense. The others (especially Obama) have more to prove, more doubts to contest, and just more uncertainty in general. Endorsements from institutional folks like Kerry gives voters who may harbor doubts a bit of assurance. That's why I think endorsements like Z-big are important (to the extent anyone knows about that one). Kennedy and Gore, likewise, good really help Obama.

I would say something similar for Edwards. I don't think there is the same uncertainty with him (since he has been on the national scene for a while), but any institutional support for him could boost general voter confidence.

Gore might help Hillary, on the other hand, just because he is seen by some as a moral warrior of sorts; accordingly, his support might help Hillary in the trust department. However, many might not see a Gore endorsement for Hillary as particularly meaningful, since he was part of the Clinton admin.

But, really, who the hell knows. I can't imagine an endorsement affecting my decision regarding whom to support. Least of all a newspaper's editorial board.  

amen.

Ain't it lovely?  

Thanks guys for proving us with a split story line.

All that said, the counter by Obama's team in getting the Globe endorsement out just before the DMR for Clinton happened, was great political coverage that equalized the storyline

Something Obama did right!1 I didn't think you had it in you....it does help with the national media.

Prove that a newspaper endorsement meant shift in a campaign.  Newspapers were relevant 20-25 years ago, now not so.  Iowans are not going to shift their perception because the DMR says so.  As people in New England ares will for Obama.  This is just establishment.  Period.

I think it's probably true that a blanket statement is off a bit, but not too far off. Unless a newspaper really goes against the grain and bolsters a non-insider candidate, they don't mean anything beyond firing up supporters (which is not inconsequential).

A DMR endorsement of Clinton won't have much of an effect, imo, because voters have certainly already factored in her established, insider position in their estimation of her. A little reinforcement of that position (as the DMR endorsement is) doesn't do a whole lot for her.

A Globe endorsement of Obama is only marginally more useful because Barack's slightly less "insider," so some institutional support is helpful to him. But that's really not too big a deal, either. The folks who would really pay attention to newspaper endorsements have already decided long before newspapers endorse.

Clinton did need a shot of good news. Alternatively, an endorsement of one of the other top three would have hurt her badly. So, it is very helpful, indeed. And for me, a great relief. I want to see her win.

the heading is unrelated to the post, btw

but a candidate like Hillaary is helped least by these things.  Who really is undecided about her and would be swayed? It helps stop the bleeding if she uses it right and stops going negative.

 and Shaheen backlash starts opening a bit of a lead in NH don't be surprisesd if he starts lowering Iowa expectations a bit, although I don't think he'll say it will take a miracle for him to win.

For the undecided voter the DMR endorsement has to help.  But for a voter who is choosing between Edwards and Obama, its not going to help because they wrote off Clinton already.  

I always liked the CLintons even though I considered them dishonest, but I gave them a pass because they were fighting the GOP.  Now that they are showing themselves as nasty and dishonest toward demoncrats, they deserve no pass.  And so when I look at Clinton I see what the GOP saw in the 90's and most still see.  I think that is also what Iowans see and they have turned away from Clinton.  I was surprised at how lightly attended one of her recent rallies was.  If you saw her at the DMR interview, she looked absolutely awful.  So visually she is also less appealing.  Truth be told, she needed Oprah, someone to vouch for her humanity.  Obama needed the DMR endorsement to vouch for his competence.

it's difficult and Edwards himself has trouble making the electability argument for that very reason.

I think that's unfortunate and unfair.

Exactly what tough campaign has Edwards come through where he's been a winner?  People would make this argument at the beginning of the season and then I would watch Edwards with the $400 haircut thing and the seeming unawareness that someone was filming him during what became the I'm so Pretty video and I thought, my God, these are rookie mistakes.  What did he learn in 2004?  I don't see anything in his campaign that shows me the seasoned toughness of someone who has gone through it.  

Obama on the other hand, learned greatly by losing an election.  He has been through the rigors of Chicago politics, which are not genteel.  The idea that he isn't ready for a tough national campaign is certainly not backed up by the way he has held his ground and played this thing near perfectly against the Clinton machine, which is a lot more together at this point than the Republicans.  What in Edwards campaign so far show's he is?

In the end, Edwards must propose a plan of his intentions on February 5th and beyond.  So far, nothing.  Clinton and Obama has offices and have been building in these states for months, nothing to be dismissive about.  1/2 of the country will vote on February 5th, and to reach these folk it will be massive TV War.  Does Edwards have the money for this?  Because if you do not want Clinton, then the viability issue is squarely on the table.  Look at it the way it is.  His acceptance of public financing has put him in a dangerous position, as he is close to cap.  The money is issue is real, if he had not taken it he would be the one with the boost.

Well,

Gee.Let me play devils ad for a second. I know that's wrong to presume that this was what you were going to say as an excuse. But in his defense, when all you hear from people who are supporting John Edwards is "Obama can't win the South. America is too racist" and it's coming from Edwards supporters all over the blogosphere. (Please don't make me look it up)

Then you have John Edwards making subtle hints on the campaign trail telling people to gather around and close their eyes and imagine all three of them campaigning and then suggest, "See? I can campaign anywhere and the Obama can't", yeah, your gonna think race has something to do with it because that's all you hear.

Take John Edwards most recent comment. "The last two Presidents talked Like this" pointing to his face , not his mouth, but his face. on Hardball. So, please. You may be all shocked that someone would think you were going to respond that way. But please don't pretend that others haven't been making those subtle arguments.

agreed on the DMR although it hurts Edwards alot more than Obama, he has to deal with other candidates supporters talking about how they "unendorsed him" ect... Obama  will live or die on his ability to get out alot of indies, young people and even a few repubs to the polls and hope some of thier enthusiasm rubs off on people. I read a good article but I can't remember where about the "parking lot gap" where Gephardt supporters surronded by exitement for Edwards and Kerry got sucked in. The Obama plan for the caucus is to create a party like atmosphere that others really can't create drwing in loose and other nonviable's supporters.

If this paper carried so much weight, why has their selection been wrong since 1984?

I agree.

And, Harold Ford does like white women.

I think the power of that ad has been tremendously misinterpreted.  The ad was about sex, not race, and really was about hypocrisy. Ford ran as a devout Christian, a born-again running around the state handing out cards with bible verses on them.  And then he goes to a party thrown by Playboy, and bragged about it.  There was a disconnect between what people expected his Christian values meant and his behavior, and that's what gave the ad impact and lasting value.  It eroded his base which was looking past race.  

The ads worked against Ford because they were TRUE! Ford responded arrogantly instead of fighting back.

"Yeah. It's true. I like Foot Ball and I like girls"

Which , in the minds of voters, confirmed everything in the negative ads.

That's why he lost.

now you've got me curious.

Yeah I was gonna say, I'd put Ted's right up there with Kerry and Gore.  And I'm still not sure Wes Clark is all that big of a deal... not saying I dislike the man, but I don't think he is as well known as some people on MyDD think he is to the average citizen.  It certainly isn't BAD to have him, I just don't see evidence that his endorsement will make a difference.  Now as a VP, then his importance shines through.

No that is not what he said. He said he would ban posters attacking other posters by insinuating they were racist to point out some conservative voters will vote based upon race.

No.

Honestly. I think he was talking about people who might accuse him of being racist because of some of his recent attack Diaries against Barack Obama. But he made it general to include everyone who opposes his nomination. However , while some  of the accusations of racism against those who are not supporting Barack Obama , have been unfair , many of them have not.

ioiycs? i like that.

jerome strains to appear reasonable now, when his slams against oprah were anything but. if he's going to blame oprah for bush having become president, how about extending equal time in discussing the different ways the clintons have enabled and provided cover for republicans?

The biggest endorsement story in the last week or so really is the DMR and the Globe both endorsing McCain.  It's as if the rational wing of the Party is trying to steer them past all the jokers and back to a sensible choice, (as if singing bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is sensible).  In terms of a Republican perspective, he appears to be the only one who may have a chance to be a unifying candidate for them.  

watching reliable sources, somebody mentioned dmr sponsored gop debate put the iraq vote off the table. did they really? what kind of newspaper takes the iraq war off the table?