Out of curiosity. What was the Concord Monitor's stance leading up to the Iraq war. This is not a loaded question as I do not know the answer.

I don't believe the first statement is factual in any way.

Number three likewise; she hasn't said she would do that.

I don't see how that to-do list makes her any different than any of the other five contendors. They've all got those same goals.

Oh well, I'm not a Hillary hater, but the lack of grassroots energy behind her is palpable.  

I hope I eat my words, but Hillary is a technocrat like Kerry and will probably run a similar campaign.  We're on the highway to a McCain administration now...

1.  Vote present.

2.  Make a speech proclaiming how audacious your "present vote" really is!

I think that, like all endorsements, it will help her a small bit with some good media coverage, but won't make or break her chances at the nomination.

The editorial is, at once, as cogent and compelling a case for Senator Clinton as was that of the Des Moines Register.

Occasionally, at least, the print media breaks with the broadcast media, almost all of whom have hated the Clintons for fifteen years.

Next week will reveal the extent to which that Clinton-hating media has been able to effect results in either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both.

The national numbers, to this very day, are quite clear--core Democrats support the Clintons (ever and always a tandem) and haven't wavered all year.

Were the traditional (not "cross-over" or "indie leaning") states in the mix now, rather than largely represented on February 5, of course Senator Clinton would already have the nomination sewed up.

The MSM (and much of their fellow Clinton-hating blogosphere) know that fact only too well.

Again, one has only to examine dispassionately the dynamics of the race from January through December of 2007.  

Iowa inaugurated the year trending Edwards; quickly became a wash, and ends the year a wash.

New Hampshire inauguated the year with several traded leads, trended Senator Clinton, and ends the year, despite all the indies and Republicans trending toward Senator Obama, with core Democrats there still firmly supporting Senator Clinton.

And the national race has changed little if at all--Senator Clinton by averages to the moment, nearly twenty points ahead of her competition.

For the MSM and blogosphere, the race is all about Iowa and New Hampshire--with the prayer that the dynamic changes afterwards.

For them, that establishes the precedent.  But they all ignore the obvious fact that this year is unprecedented--the three top-tier candidates are extremely well known nationally.

I believe that this year represents the last hurrah for Iowa and New Hampshire.  

They either follow the prescient leads of the two key newspaper endorsements of Senator Clinton, and follow the national bedrock core Democratic support of Senator Clinton, or become permanently irrelevant.

The dynamics, despite all the Clinton-hating invective from the broadcast media and much of the blogosphere, are simply not going to change.

We who are core Democrats, inveterate and proud, are not going to endorse a three-year Senate novice as our standard-bearer.  

And whatever former Senator Edwards accomplishes or does not in Iowa hardly puts him on the institutional footing that the Clintons have within the Democratic Party.

That is simply the way it is.  And although Messrs. Russert/Matthews/Williams and fellow talking-heads and blogosphere anti-Clinton rhetoricians would have it otherwise, their orgasms for Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards can only take their candidates so far.

I don't think the list is any different than what any of the leading Democratic candidates would do.

But I do think there's likely to be less lag time getting started on it with Clinton than the others simply because she's been through the process of setting up a government before and is likely to be ready with a team much earlier and to know immediately how to move the ball (she's specifically said that's one of the things she's learned).  It's a small difference, but could be an important one.  Every day the next president dawdles, the conservatives build strength against him.  Clinton learned that from the last time, too.

I think each candidate has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, but if you're going to choose Clinton, then this seems like the right argument to be making for why.  It's where her experience will probably make a difference.  

But, yeah, in the end, it's an endorsement for Democratic priorities and that's a good thing, IMO.  People need to be constantly reminded of what's at stake.

Immediately after taking office, President Hillary Clinton would begin preparations to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

So, immediately after taking office Hillary "would begin preparations" to get us out of Iraq?  Note that it doesn't say she would immediately withdraw troops from Iraq.  It says she would "begin preparations".

Sounds wonderful...  

A great endorsement. It's not going to make or break anything, but every little thing might count with things as close as they are.

Keep in mind that the Monitor also endorsed McCain, the child of Ronald Reagan. To me this would suggest that the Monitor is probably rightward leaning, since the difference here is between a Republican and a Republican Lite. The Monitor just did not endorse any Democratic candidate.

This morning's Monitor editorial endorsed John McCain in New Hampshire's Republican primary. It concludes:

   Earlier in the campaign, when McCain was being counted out, a consultant might have urged a makeover: Lose the moral compass on torture and immigration, ditch the vision for a turnaround in Iraq.

   Not a chance. John McCain held on to his principles and defended them with dignity. New Hampshire residents who vote in the Republican primary should reward that integrity with their votes.