BREAKING: DM Register goes Clinton

Read and weep. Hillary Clinton has been endorsed by the Des Moines Register.

With dissension at home and distrust abroad, as American troops continue to fight wars on two fronts, the times call for two essential qualities in the next American president," the Register’s editorial board concluded. "Those qualities became the paramount considerations in making endorsements for the Democratic and Republican nominees in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

With Obama being endorsed by the Boston Globe earlier tonight, the top two candidates have split the two major regional newspapers. To be honest, this is a bit of a shocker to me considering the paper's past endorsements. The question of the night, at least to me, is whether or not this will give HRC any momentum. Thoughts?

Why not Obama: The Register:

He’s smart. He’s crafted sharp policy proposals. He’s worked across the aisle as both an Illinois state senator and in the U.S. Senate. He’s done solid work on needed but thankless legislation such as requiring videotaping of police interrogations in capital-punishment cases in Illinois and reforming ethics laws at the state and federal levels. In the U.S. Senate, he’s burnished his foreign-policy credentials on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

So there’s far more to Barack Obama than inspiring oratory, his optimistic messages of hope and change, and his symbolism of youth and multiculturalism. Take all of that as a package, and oh the possibilities. His election would signal to all Americans, especially young black men, that our nation still holds opportunities for them. And it would signal to the world that America is more attuned to the international community. Obama says it like this: From the day I’m elected, this country will look at itself differently, and the world will look at us differently.

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.

Edwards?

We still believe he’s right about two Americas, the one for people who have everything they need and the one for people who struggle to get by. He’s right about the stagnation of middle-class wages. He’s right that the tax system and overall economic policy have become too tilted toward the affluent, making it virtually impossible for poor and middle-class families to get ahead.

He’s right that the baby-boomer generation risks breaking the "one moral commandment" of Americans: "To give our children a better future than we received."
Edwards is most persuasive when he appeals to America’s goodness to do better by the vulnerable among us, as he did in last week’s Register Democratic debate:

"...Somewhere in America tonight, a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. ...Somewhere in America today, a father who’s worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job. That’s what’s at stake in this election. What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election. What’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine."

Edwards has set the ambitious goal of eliminating poverty in a generation. He’s developed creative proposals to help families save and make college more affordable. (Other Democrats have outlined similar plans.) Edwards or whoever is the party’s standard-bearer should work to take those plans to the White House.

The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to "cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington," can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?